For PDM/Trade we use:
 - "Site" for node category
 - "Warehouse" for node
 - "Owner" for section category
 - "Owner" for section

For Invoicing/Accounting this does not change.

Also, since in PDM/Trade context we are sometimes only taking care of physical movements/quantities and not the ownership, make sure that:
 - "Site" is first in report dialogs
 - "Section Category" is not initialised from preference, so that reports show the quantities in a location regardless of the ownership

See merge request nexedi/erp5!1202

- add an empty item to the list, so that user have to choose something. The empty item was missing here:

![image](/uploads/5be3e9d5acf1233270516c7463dbfdd4/image.png)

If there's an empty item and we force user to choose, there will not be the problem that user can forget to select the good value and mistakenly generates for the Fifo because it's the first value.

- translate values

See merge request nexedi/erp5!1204

A few small fixes to form and page templates to allow their translations

Missing messages in french translation

See merge request nexedi/erp5!1201

See merge request nexedi/erp5!1198

See merge request nexedi/erp5!1197

See merge request nexedi/erp5!1196

Also, as OAuthTool class is only used as a Folder ({Google,Facebook}Connector) remove
{unused,unmaintained,unfinished} code:
  * Properties are statically set on portal_oauth directly with non-persistent classes
    define in OAuthTool.py. This prevents migration to ZODB Components as migrating
    OAuthTool.py to erp5_oauth would break upgrade: chicken & egg issue: we need these
    classes on importFile(portal_oauth.xml) (portal_templates.download()) but they are
    not available until the bt5 is installed....
  * Several properties are supposed to be secret but statically set in OAuthTool.py.
  * This code has never been used since its introduction 9 years ago.

Unlike trade and like accounting, for invoice we are using "Section Category"
term for section category, it's no longer about "who is the owner of this
stock" like in trade, but already "who is the entity" like in accounting

 - add an empty item to the list, so that user have to choose something
 - translate values

for consistency with other stock reports such as
Base_viewStockReportBySiteDialog

most trade and PDM report are about "what quantity of resources do we
have here", in most uses cases, we are not concerned about who is the
owner of these, so it's probably better to not select these by default.

This tab was probably useless, let's remove it.

When using SavedTestSuite, the first step is to make testnode run --save for
each instance, by running the test referenced in _saved_test_id class
attributes.

Because log files are defined only by the test name, this was causing the
multiple concurrent runUnitTest executions with --save to all log in the same
file. That file was also reused when actually running this test later.

Override getLogDirectoryPath to use a different folder, one per instance, when
doing the initial --save

These are simple report/exports, they work fine with ERP5JS

Since a long time python unittest provides good assertions and we don't need to
build out own.

If a Credential Request/Recovery can not be accepted, the alarm should not
retry again and again.

We use an hasActivity test before trying to accept to prevent causing multiple
failing activities, if it already failed once, no need to retry more,
CMFActivity built-in retry mechanism is enough.

- Use ³ instead of the HTML entity form, ERP5JS does not allow HTML in field names
- Make Component_view uses Base_viewPDMFieldLibrary, like Product_view
- Add the proper description of this in field library
- Resource_viewFieldLibrary/my_base_volume is kept, for compatibility (not sure it's needed)
- Adjust ERP5Site_checkNamingConventions to allow m³, not m&179;
- Update all translations

We sometimes used "Invalid search criteria", sometimes "Invalid Search
Criteria". Unify to use "Invalid Search Criteria" everywhere

See merge request nexedi/erp5!1177

See merge request nexedi/erp5!1182

    The separation aims to reduce the dependency required to use the macros, where:

       * erp5_web_renderjs_ui_test contains the tests and the dependencies to run the tests
       * erp5_web_renderjs_ui_test_core contains the reusable macros, that can be used on other projects to write their own tests.

This is a first prototype showing how a site rendering can be modified
on the style with a renderJS gadget (to remove, add, modify current page
elements).

The navigation is automatically handle by the javascript (with the
pushState API), which really speed up the navigation on powerless
machine (like Pinebook Pro).

Until now, a reset was performed even though ZODB Components were not created or
replaced. Introduce a new installation hook to avoid those useless resets.

When installing bootstrap bt5s, erp5_base, erp5_simulation: 33 => 12 resets.

Improve consistency with document view

The changes from !1158 were not so good in ERP5JS, it was good to have the action here:

![stock browser dialog showing Stock as a view action](/uploads/0e9495858295016926da484b6c5fa68f/image.png)

and not under "Exports", because this is not an export, it's an interactive report.

Also, the "Stock" button is not easy to understand, this is not an action, so we use only an update button now:


![stock browser dialog with only an update action, no action](/uploads/71f40b3e2e951f3c95f7ff885dd91090/image.png)

Also, the action button in movement history was confusing, it's not a button where user have to click. It was like this, with a confusing button (but this button was sometimes useful, because with this button we can go back to stock browser):

![movement history before](/uploads/75450d7fbfe1f208ca17e14b22059b38/image.png)

Now it's like this, the button is not here, but since the action is now listed in Views, it's easy to go back to stock browser:

![movement history after](/uploads/d66d28f1fc66b69b84baba6d88574afc/image.png)

See merge request !1179

Since 5eb06085 (erp5_web_renderjs_ui: do not display submit and cancel if action is empty in form_dialog., 2020-06-10) ERP5JS does not display submit button, this continues in this direction to:

 - Apply the same possibility in xhtml_style to not show a submit button when there's no action. In xhtml_style we show the cancel button using the same rules as everywhere else.
 - Fix error in ERP5JS for dialogs with only an update action but no action.

See merge request nexedi/erp5!1181

Change login button to comply with Google's branding guidelines.

Add support for google login in ERP5JS.


See merge request nexedi/erp5!1166

See merge request nexedi/erp5!1171