Allow edition in the new UI

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

This module is not sorted, we cannot just do assertions based on line
index.
Instead we do two different approaches:
 - When there is only one "empty" draft transaction, we check locate the
line based on the state cell and then check each cell relatively to that
first xpath
 - After we had a second draft, we just check that we have two lines
matching each cell predicate.

Sometimes test fail we don't have any information about what the problem
was.

Using the same technique of turning a promise into "a function called
several times until it returns true or false", we can get rejection
failures in the selenium error message.

The term (used for example on HTTPExchange_view/my_follow_up_title ) is
"Follow-up". This will fix testNamingConventions failure.

so that user can overwrite easier in html

For options:
${WebPage_insertFollowUpCostEffortReport}
${WebPage_insertFollowUpCostEffortDetailReport}
script's name is changed to Base_generateCostEffortReportContent
and parameter is changed also

template for Scalability tests.

It was found useful in cases, so good to have it available

Exactly like prices and other properties, it is useful for some projects to define different
descriptions depending if we are doing sales or purchases

[erp5_core] Return 400 status code when updating a dialog

Also, this prevents logging the same information on every listbox load.

This merge request aims to prevent programming errors by raising instead of silently doing nothing (which is a source of bugs).

Currently, if an object as category property for a category "category", 2 families of setters were created :

1. The string setter, following the format ```_setCategory``` and taking a relative URL as the argument.
2. The value setter, following the format ```_setCategoryValue``` and taking an object as the argument.

The issue is that developers may pass the wrong argument to one of these functions, having for consequences :

1. For case (1), if an object is passed, the code would silently do nothing : nothing is set as relation, but the code doesn't fail. This is the worst case. 
2. For the second case, passing a relative URL to ```_setCategoryValue``` would "work" (in the meaning the relation is set to the correct object). This may sound like a feature, but in my opinion it is confusing given the way ERP5 developers apprehend these setters nowadays.

For case 1, a test is existing that an exception is raised, but due to coding error the feature disappeared and no one noticed : https://lab.nexedi.com/Nicolas/erp5/blob/b3ed2210ed6b30390b901c8620de6eafcc27a574/product/CMFCategory/tests/testCMFCategory.py#L810-815

For case 2, compatibility code exists in the underlying function ```_setValue``` : https://lab.nexedi.com/Nicolas/erp5/blob/b3ed2210ed6b30390b901c8620de6eafcc27a574/product/ERP5Type/Base.py#L1840-1842

In this MR, the exception caused by case (1) has been restored (so now it fails loudly).

Case (2) has been deprecated, in order to keep backward compatibility.

I have run the tests with the ```DeprecationWarning``` raising an error instead of just a warning,  and fixed the code were the setters weren't used correctly.

Ideally, tests should always run with this ```DeprecationWarning``` being a real error so both cases crash loudly. This won't be part of this Merge Request.


/reviewed-on nexedi/erp5!938

This adds a new field on Test Suite Repository to configure a "gitlab connector".

If this is set, then the commit from this repository will be annotated with the test status (failed or success). Gitlab uses these annotations to show that status on the merge request.

At the same time, fix a few minor problems on `erp5_test_result`.

/reviewed-on nexedi/erp5!924