feat: added re-usable Link widget and JSON endpoint

[fsbraun]

Description

This PR implements the result of discussion django-cms/django-cms#8024 and prepares for django CMS Link 5.0.

• Re-usable LinkWidget, LinkFormField, and LinkField (model field)
• Re-usable JSON endpoint for available URLs
• Improved usability (a single link widget instead of two fieldsets consisting of 6 fields to enter a link)
• The site dropdown (autocomplete field) only appears in multi-site installations
• Automatic detection of linkable models (Django or django CMS) which have admins with search_fieldsattribute and which have a get_absolute_url method
• Migrations (tested in unit tests!) automatically update existing plugins
• Fixes get_link will always return absolute urls instead of relative urls, making it hard to author content/test out locally #200

Other changes include the update of translations and tests to current Django versions.

Related resources

• ✅ COMPLETED - RfC - managing URLs in Django CMS django-cms#8024
• get_link will always return absolute urls instead of relative urls, making it hard to author content/test out locally #200

Checklist

• I have opened this pull request against master
• I have added or modified the tests when changing logic
• I have followed the conventional commits guidelines to add meaningful information into the changelog
• I have read the contribution guidelines and I have joined #workgroup-pr-review on
  Slack to find a “pr review buddy” who is going to review my pull request.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 94.12879% with 31 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 95.35%. Comparing base (1d33608) to head (221201b).
Report is 3 commits behind head on master.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
djangocms_link/admin.py	86.95%	12 Missing and 6 partials ⚠️
djangocms_link/fields.py	96.72%	1 Missing and 5 partials ⚠️
djangocms_link/migrations/0017_link_link.py	85.18%	1 Missing and 3 partials ⚠️
djangocms_link/helpers.py	97.43%	0 Missing and 2 partials ⚠️
djangocms_link/apps.py	95.00%	0 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #229      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   93.81%   95.35%   +1.54%     
==========================================
  Files          24       27       +3     
  Lines         291      668     +377     
  Branches       27       86      +59     
==========================================
+ Hits          273      637     +364     
- Misses         11       14       +3     
- Partials        7       17      +10     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

---

🚨 Try these New Features:

• Flaky Tests Detection - Detect and resolve failed and flaky tests

[marksweb]

I think this sets this project apart from others. Is this something you want to start using across the board?

[fsbraun]

Frankly, that's just convenience: hatchling created the pyproject.toml file automatically. I can see if I can configure it to use setuptools instead.

[marksweb]

I haven't used hatchling, so I'm not against it and don't really have any strong opinions on packaging options. So I was mostly curious and I know Jens Erik talked about hatchling a while back.

[fsbraun]

From what I've seen, the discovery is somewhat smarter. You don't need a MANIFEST.in file. I guess setuptools grew quite complex over the years. I changed things to setuptools, let's see how it works.

[marksweb]

We could consider dropping everything but tests from tox. Because pre-commit and github actions can pick up these.

Then you can get the github tests to install with uv and install tox and tox-uv. This is a similar setup then to what I have here; https://github.com/marksweb/django-nh3/blob/main/.github/workflows/main.yml#L42

[fsbraun]

I don't really use tox. Kept it for consistency. I'm fine with removing linting from tox. uv probably is for performance reasons, right?

[marksweb]

Tox just makes running the test suite locally easier - then you can get github to do the same for consistency.

Yeah - uv is just doing things better. (I actually used it to setup a fresh project to show an example of clearing cache from admin recently.)

[fsbraun]

@sourcery-ai review

[sourcery-ai]

We failed to fetch the diff for pull request #229

You can try again by commenting this pull request with @sourcery-ai review, or contact us for help.