Edit order_group_article result in orders screen

[wvengen]

Following #253, this improves the "sort by ordergroups" and "sort by articles" views, used in orders and balancing and allows in-place editing of the result (when the order is finished but not closed).

The image here is about balancing, but the same applies to viewing an order.

• update totals after change in "sort by" views
• allow adding articles - Q: what user-interface approach to use? (see below image)
  • A: postpone
• Q: should editing of group_order_article results be restricted to balancing?
  • A: no, require finance permission
• Q: do we need a new role for updating group_order_article result? !=finance !=orders
  • A: no, only allow updating with finance permission

Would this fix #29 as well?

I'm uncertain how to ui design adding an article. The select2 dropdown listbox is used at different places, and I like it. But here it would mean that each and every ordergroup or article would get one - which is a bit too much. This could be fixed by showing the edit boxes only after pressing an "edit" button, which would also add an "add article" selectbox, but I think that is less clear.

Any ideas on this? @JuliusR @robwa @dokterbob?

[wvengen]

Observe_field doesn't work when elements are replaced by ajax; besides, I needed more control: submit after leaving the delta-input textfield (so that if a user was typing something not recognised as a number, the current value would not be overwritten, and the ajax call returning wouldn't overwrite what he was typing).

[wvengen]

I'll restrict editing GroupOrderArticle result to the finance permission. If you have it, you can do it in orders and balancing; if you don't, there'll be no edit box (and the put/post would be denied as well, of course).

[wvengen]

I got lost in git merge & rebase land. Any ideas on how to cleanup the history would be welcome.

[fsmanuel]

@wvengen because it's a branch and there should be no important forks you can do a rollback to the commit you want. after that your working directory has all the new changes (current state of your files) and you can do a commit with all the changes.

[wvengen]

Thanks @fsmanuel - what I mean is that I'd like to do an interactive rebase leaving existing commits on master intact. To squash merges in this history. Doing a rebase on master fails, since master has been merged already. But wait a minute, git rebase -i --onto 2b0d4b0ad742378767003442b0b59ad8beb79492 master might actually work.