Add business rule to validate Determination taxon with COType

[sharadsw]

Fixes #5111

Using business rules to check whether treeDef of a Determination Taxon is same as treeDef of the selected COType in a CO form. Save is blocked if they are not the same.

Checklist

• Self-review the PR after opening it to make sure the changes look good
  and self-explanatory (or properly documented)
• Add automated tests
• Add relevant issue to release milestone

Testing instructions

Set up the COType field in the CO form

Ideally, COType would be set as a picklist. However, until #5098 is fixed, it is not possible to configure one for COType. Instead for this PR, COType can be set up as a QCBX.

• Go to App Resources > Type Searches (found under Global Resources)
• Add the following line in the XML editor:

<typesearch tableid="1015"  name="CollectionObjectType" searchfield="name" displaycols="name" format="%s" uifieldformatter="" dataobjformatter="" system="true"/>

• Click on the Form Definition tab
• Select the correct .views file for the collection you are in
• Go the the Collection Object form definition
• Add the following lines inside an existing <row>:

<cell type="label" labelfor="111"/>
<cell type="field" id="111" name="collectionObjectType" uitype="querycbx" />

Your CO form should look something like this

Testing the PR

• Make sure to use a db with multiple trees in the same discipline and multiple COTypes in the same collection
• Go to the CO form
• Select a COType
• Add a determination
• Choose a Taxon which does not belong to the COType's treeDefiniton
• Verify save is blocked
• Choose a Taxon which belongs to the COType's treeDefiniton
• Verify save is enabled

[melton-jason]

While there is functionally nothing wrong with this Business Rule, I don't think it addresses what the requirement initially was for #5111:

When creating a new Determination record, the system should check the objectType.taxonTreeDef field to find the tree to search for the user's entered name when searching in the taxon or preferredTaxon query combo boxes

I think the implementation of this would be to scope the results of the Taxon QueryComboBox to the correct tree depending on the objectType.
Is this functionality going to be included in another PR?

Right now from the changes in stored_queries/execution.py, I think the returned results from the QueryComboBox are from all Taxon Trees.

Is this the new requirement? To return all Taxon records when searching and instead have this businessrule to determine whether the determination is correct or not?

This is not the ideal from the user perspective, but it does eliminate a lot of complexity.
Still, if this the approach we are going with then I think we can further improve quality-of-life (such as by ordering the results of the QueryComboBox by Tree).

(Conceptually, wouldn't the ideal implementation default the filtering of results in QueryComboBoxes for Taxon records to the TaxonTreeDef on Collection -> TaxonTreeDef? On the Determination Form/SubView, we can then further filter the results based on the CollectionObject -> coType -> taxonTreeDef.
Definitely not easy, but if we go with a simpler, less complex approach I think we should still try and make it as intuitive as possible).

[emenslin]

See #5036 (review)

[emenslin]

Testing the PR

• Make sure to use a db with multiple trees in the same discipline and multiple COTypes in the same collection
• Go to the CO form
• Select a COType
• Add a determination
• Choose a Taxon which does not belong to the COType's treeDefiniton
• Verify save is blocked
• Choose a Taxon which belongs to the COType's treeDefiniton
• Verify save is enabled

Looks good, works as expected

[lexiclevenger]

Testing the PR

• Make sure to use a db with multiple trees in the same discipline and multiple COTypes in the same collection
• Go to the CO form
• Select a COType
• Add a determination
• Choose a Taxon which does not belong to the COType's treeDefiniton
• Verify save is blocked
• Choose a Taxon which belongs to the COType's treeDefiniton
• Verify save is enabled

---

Looks good!

[specifysoftware]

This pull request has been mentioned on Specify Community Forum. There might be relevant details there:

https://discourse.specifysoftware.org/t/specify-7-9-7-release-announcement/1979/1