Because it is mainly used from the 'initsite' zope.conf section, the passed
value is often a string, hence the automatic cast to integer.

The default is defined in erp5_core: 1
The specific value '0' disables storage in ZODB.
Another other value sets the interval.

- Use unrestricted _edit method on reportTaskStatus - restrictedTraverse applies security anyway
- Remove some useless code
- Fix TypeError: stopUnitTest() takes exactly 3 arguments (4 given)

In order to use setting in multiple application on same domain.

/reviewed-on nexedi/erp5!474

createTestResult is called also without node_title, and it shall allow
execution in such case.

Such parameter can produce undesired conditions
(ex: FROM catalog as node, ... WHERE node.uid > 0 AND ...) causing poor
performance. So avoid introducing this parameter when its value is empty.

There is no need for any client to call tool directly.

This results with calling correct methods on the server.

This results with calling correct methods on the server.

The module is to access Distributor not the whole tool.

This results with calling correct methods on the server.

Since distributor is used, tests need adaptation:

 * created default Test Node and Test Suite, required by
   Distributor.createTestResult
 * adapted _createTestResult to reuse created documents
 * adapted some tests in order to reuse created documents

Several changes to `Item_getTrackingList`.

My original goal was to fix a problem happening when users sort the listbox by `source_title` column. Because catalog understands it, it adds a join condition which would filter movements not "directly" having a source (ie. having a source by acquisition from parent). 

Then I realized this script was doing a lots of catalog queries that are done in a most efficient/safe way on the brain, so I switched to this.

Also add a few missing tests.

I did not add test for my original problem, because the real fix is that listbox should not declare `source_title` to be a sortable column, because this method does not support it.


/reviewed-on nexedi/erp5!469

rJS gadget uses text content as value

Keep compatibility.

Modules should have the business_application base category set in order to classify them. Normally, the code helper set this category on module creation (https://lab.nexedi.com/nexedi/erp5/blob/master/product/ERP5/bootstrap/erp5_core/SkinTemplateItem/portal_skins/erp5_core/ERP5Site_createModule.py#L15), but it is often forgotten to commit it (as it should be defined explicitely in template_portal_type_base_category_list's bt5 property.

This commit tries to fix it globally in all bt5s, using a script : https://lab.nexedi.com/snippets/259. I have tried to respect file modes, file encoding, alphabetical ordering, and "\No newline at end of file" issue in order to not generate useless diffs when other people will commit on these files later.

@jerome , @vpelletier , @kazuhiko , @seb : could you have a check to the file formats to tell me if anything is wrong ? 


/reviewed-on !465

All Tickets portal types don't use the same workflow variable (validation_state/simulation_state). By retrieving first the correct workflow variable, we can then deduce the correct getter to access to each object workflow's state

/reviewed-on nexedi/erp5!418

It is a common (CRM principally) use case to search for Organisations using official identifying unique codes, as the registration code or the VAT code.

There is currently no way in ERP5 to look for entities using these unique codes, as they are not-generic enough to be indexed. For the same reason, creating a new table(s) to index Entities' identifiers may give something too blured to reach a consensus on. In my opinion fulltext search is a good solution for this case, and it shouldn't create compability issues for current projects. 

If it is thought necessary, I can also add the Social Security Code (for Organisations/Persons) in the searchable text properties, but it is a more complicated topic as it isn't a public information.

@nexedi 's project managers, what are your thoughts on it ?

/reviewed-on !463