Enhanced conflict review [extended]

[howard-e]

@stalgiag while doing additional checks on #1195, noticed a few usability concerns that I've addressed in this PR that I had originally missed:

• Include versionString in issue body and title when creating from /conflicts
• The requiredAtVersionName variable was incorrect. Changed to using exactAtVersionName
• Updated the disclosures to be unique by commands per test, otherwise the same conflict was being duplicated if tester1 and tester2 had different results for assertion1 and assertion2 in the same test (each difference counts as conflict which was being mapped over in the view)
• Added support for the markdown conflict being included from the Raise an Issue for Conflict button

[howard-e]

• Updated the disclosures to be unique by commands per test, otherwise the same conflict was being duplicated if tester1 and tester2 had different results for assertion1 and assertion2 in the same test (each difference counts as conflict which was being mapped over in the view)

Thinking on this some more, to retain current behavior from the Test Run page, this should probably be unique to just the test

[stalgiag]

This all makes sense to me! Thank you so much for adding it. This is a case of me forgetting to check with a production dump and relying on the limited cases in the default DB.

I am curious if now that we are heavily suggesting the use of a generated template for the issue, we should only enable a 'Raise an Issue' button when there isn't an existing issue. This can be a different discussion and isn't an important point but it feels a bit odd to me to suggest raising an issue that will be largely identical to an existing one.

[howard-e]

I am curious if now that we are heavily suggesting the use of a generated template for the issue, we should only enable a 'Raise an Issue' button when there isn't an existing issue. This can be a different discussion and isn't an important point but it feels a bit odd to me to suggest raising an issue that will be largely identical to an existing one.

Very good point there! We can discuss a bit further and certainly a point to raise to others who may be reviewing.