AdminUI: updates to Custom Group & Field

[aydun]

Overview

This enhances the Administer Custom Group and Field pages in the AdminUI extension.

Before

It is not always obvious which custom group contains a specific custom field resulting in multiple rounds of opening up the field listing for a group, realising it is the wrong one, going back and trying again.

After

Custom field names are listed on the custom group page along with a filter making it very quick to find and edit a field.

Also has a few tweaks/standardisations in line with other AdminUI pages.

Technical Details

The field listing is formatted by replacing commas with '<br>'. If a field label contains a comma it will have wrong line breaks, but that is fairly unlikely and not a big deal if it happens. Ideally, the fields would be available as an array to allow formatting, but until then, this is good enough. This does not affect filtering.

Comments

[civibot]

(Standard links)

• If you are reviewing this pull-request, you may wish to consult the test sites and the Review Standards (long template, short template).

[colemanw]

Bit of a waste of the ts() function here...

[colemanw]

Is this a bug in the Export API?

[aydun]

Thanks - updated.

[colemanw]

@aydun I just went down a wee rabbit hole with this one. Because the raw data (which has the results of GROUP_CONCAT(fields) already as an array) is available in the rewrite function... yet just out of reach.
It can be assigned for use in the Smarty syntax, as it was in this earlier draft of the PR, however our security policy prevents anything useful being done with it as php-based modifiers like |implode are disallowed.
The list of modifiers we allow in strict mode is much smaller than necessary (there's nothing insecure about strtolower or uc_words or implode). But I'm slightly hesitant to expand that list because it increases the size of our code contract (and if we ever switched from Smarty2 to some other template system, we might regret all the weird & wonderful search display rewrites we'd have to backward-support).
So that leaves me with... this PR as-is.

[aydun]

Thanks for investigating that rabbit hole @colemanw ! Given that, lets go with it as it is.