This reverts commit 35b2c024.

Allow edition in the new UI

This make everything slow as hell and prevent to quickly save.

Example: <h2 class="foo">bar</h2> => <h3 class="foo">bar</h3>

erp5_web_renderjs_ui: keep previous focus color

This reverts commit a87db49b.

Use the `ui-list-grid` class on a `ul` element.

```
return gadget.getTranslationDict([Foo])
  .push(function (translation_dict) {
    console.log(translation_dict['Foo'])
  });
```

```
return gadget.getCommandUrlForDict({
  foo_key: {
    command: 'display'
  }
})
  .push(function (url_dict) {
    console.log(url_dict.foo_key);
  });
```

erp5_web_renderjs_ui_test: Add page to be used as example of links to extra menu and cover it with test

The query planner does not seem to notice that we are trying to know if
any row exists matching a set of dependency values, and it keeps scanning
multiple row for each value - which is unproductive.
So split dependency queries from (pseudo-code)
  WHERE <column{,s}> IN <values{, pairs}>
to unions of
  WHERE <column{,s}> = <value{, pair}> LIMIT 1
which produces query plans which do stop immediately when finding a
candidate row.
On a serialization_tag query with 40 values and real-world indexations,
this reduces the number of rows scanned by mariadb from 500 (<10%
efficiency) to 40 (100% efficiency).
The produced SQL is significantly larger (~3x, around 500kB on
real-world sample data, but may vary a lot depending on value length),
but if this has any effect is is more than compensated by the improved
query plan efficiency.

See merge request nexedi/erp5!1355

For test components, we don't use getBusinessTemplateList but define the
business templates to be installed as (test) dependencies of the business
template containing the test.

update test after c3eb0b30 , because non editable editor now render HTML

See merge request !957

See merge request !1353

currently with a test that tests document_connection

Ensure float/integer field can align right on the listbox
See nexedi/erp5@cfbc621b

This was removed from products in previous commits

Nowadays instead of creating many portal types, we use `use` category to
separate different types of movements, so it makes sense to filter by use,
the same way that we already were able to filter by portal type.

Let's be consistent and use the default size.

When `Form.proxifyField` is used to make a proxy field from a field which has only a TALES and no value, it creates a proxy field with inconsistent internal data structures where `has_value` method does not work as expected. As a consequence, proxy fields to list fields are often broken in the ods/odt rendering.

Here is a scenario to reproduce the problem:

* add `Base_viewDummyFieldLibrary` ERP5 Form
* add a `LinesField`, with id `your_test_base_field`. Change `size` to 1 (not really required but I did this in screenshots here)
* add another `LinesField`, with id `your_test_field` and in this field:
   * set a `default` (`2`) in values, it's only needed to visualise the problem in ods style:
![set default and no items](/uploads/0cb9e229b0ca6761bb15f3d8845ea3f8/image.png)
   * set `items` in TALES (`python: [('one', '1'), ('two', '2')]`) , this will be the problem
![set items in TALES](/uploads/93d90f57e15afdcca60324675b59086a/image.png)
 * So far, when this is rendered as ODS, everything is fine:
![ODS before](/uploads/ce387cd7a5146585104470bf099f890b/image.png) 
this is also what we see in html style view: ![html before](/uploads/650330951ed286576f8366bbd5c44139/image.png)
 * use the proxify action, to make `your_test_field` be a proxy field to `your_test_base_field`
![proxify action](/uploads/9ff7b29141ce7f170f340c842fd76830/image.png)
 * result of proxify action looks good, both for values:
![values after proxify](/uploads/a9f7df3cd2d0af1e036aeff352624760/image.png) and for TALES:
![TALES after proxify](/uploads/aeaaa45cc9e91e9327781d85ec1efd57/image.png)
 * but after this rendering the form with ODS becomes broken:
![ODS after proxify](/uploads/d4e7be3251c596de35333526d4f6277a/image.png) even though it looks fine with html views.

`erp5_ods_style` knows how to render list fields and it uses the "display" (two) and not the "value" (2), this is done [here](https://lab.nexedi.com/nexedi/erp5/blob/451ce4137dc1d006bc2cd155535523d51a928150/bt5/erp5_ods_style/SkinTemplateItem/portal_skins/erp5_ods_style/field_ods_macro.zpt#L60) with a check depending on `field.has_value("items")`.

`has_value` is implemented like [this](https://lab.nexedi.com/nexedi/erp5/blob/451ce4137dc1d006bc2cd155535523d51a928150/product/ERP5Form/ProxyField.py#L598-611) for proxy fields:
```python
  def has_value(self, id):
    """
    Return true if the field defines such a value.
    """
    result = None
    if (id in self.widget.property_names) or \
       (not self.is_delegated(id)):
      result = ZMIField.has_value(self, id)
    else:
      proxy_field = self.getTemplateField()
      if proxy_field is not None:
        result = proxy_field.has_value(id)
    return result
```

and like [this](https://lab.nexedi.com/nexedi/erp5/blob/451ce4137dc1d006bc2cd155535523d51a928150/product/Formulator/Field.py#L80-86) for traditional fields:

```python
    def has_value(self, id):
        """Return true if the field defines such a value.
        """
        if self.values.has_key(id) or self.form.has_field(id):
            return 1
        else:
            return 0
```

when the value is defined on the proxy field and not delegated to template field, the condition is `self.values.has_key(id)`.

But `Form.proxifyField` when transforming a traditional field in a proxy field does not keep the `id` in `self.values` if it's only needed in `self.tales`. This is the root cause of this problem, if we inspect the field, it is something like this:

```
(Pdb) self
<ProxyField at /erp5/portal_skins/custom/Base_viewDummyFieldLibrary/your_test_field>
(Pdb) pp self.tales
{'field_id': '',
 'form_id': '',
 'items': <Products.Formulator.TALESField.TALESMethod object at 0x7ffa705c7450 oid 0x572626 in <Connection at 7ffa42c1a610>>}
(Pdb) pp self.values
{'default': '2',
 'field_id': 'your_test_base_field',
 'form_id': 'Base_viewDummyFieldLibrary',
 'title': 'Test Field'}
(Pdb) self.has_value('items')
0
(Pdb) 
```

If we edit the proxy field, it will repair itself, because the proxy field edit method maintain `self.tales` and `self.values` consistent, but this is not the case  with`Form.proxifyField`, which mutate directly `.tales` and `.values` and can make them have different keys - which is not supposed to happen.

The problem is that most of the proxy fields we have have been generated by `Form.proxifyField`, so for most of our fields the XML data of business template has this inconsistency. We could have took the easy way and make change `ProxyField.has_value` to understand this case, but it's probably better to fix the data. 
`erp5_hal_json` also uses `field.has_value` in some places, so it's better to fix at field level and not to address this in `erp5_ods_style` and `erp5_odt_style`.


These changes:
 - add a little more test coverage for `ProxyField.has_value` ( at first I thought the problem was only in `has_value`)
 - Fix `Form.proxifyField`
 - add a `ProxyField.checkConsistency` to check that `.values` and `.tales` are in sync - or more exactly that all entries from `.tales` are also in `.values`, because this is what cause the problem with `has_value`.
 - re-export all proxy fields after cleaning up their `.values` and `.tales`, using `checkConsistency(fixit=True)` on all proxy fields.

See merge request !1352