feat: allow update of parent asset on UI

[joshuaunity]

Description

In this PR, I added a new field to the asset UI edit form, allowing users to update an asset's parent asset.

Look & Feel

Before

After

How to test

1. Open up any asset properties page
2. Navigate to the 'edit' op up modal on the left
3. Find the new "parent asset" field and update
4. Confirm it successfully updates

Further Improvements

In the future, it would be more powerful if we refactored these forms to use JavaScript for their update and other controls

Related Items

This PR closes #1441

Sign-off

• I agree to contribute to the project under Apache 2 License.
• To the best of my knowledge, the proposed patch is not based on code under GPL or other license that is incompatible with FlexMeasures

[read-the-docs-community]

Documentation build overview

📚 flexmeasures | 🛠️ Build #31487702 | 📁 Comparing 3b391fe against latest (d2d93ce)

🔍 Preview build

Show files changed (2 files in total): 📝 2 modified | ➕ 0 added | ➖ 0 deleted

File	Status
_autosummary/flexmeasures.api.v3_0.assets.html	📝 modified
api/v3_0.html	📝 modified

[nhoening]

I tested it and it works nicely!

1. One thing missing is a check server-side (which I stated in the issue).

• The server-side code which processes the form should check if the parent asset really belongs to the same account.
• Also make sure the asset is not listed as its own parent asset (this can be later extended to check for circularity, the parent asset should not be in the list of children or their descendants - needs a small recursive function).

2. Also, do not include the asset itself in the list of options given to the template.

[joshuaunity]

The server-side code which processes the form should check if the parent asset really belongs to the same account.

In the backend, I'm only sending assets in the same account, so the user doesn't even have the option to select a foreign asset

Also, make sure the asset is not listed as its own parent asset

This also doesn't happen anymore

Also, do not include the asset itself in the list of options given to the template.

Isn't this the same as the above

@nhoening

[nhoening]

In the backend, I'm only sending assets in the same account, so the user doesn't even have the option to select a foreign asset

The backend needs to do its own checks and not trust the client.
Sure, that is more important with REST APIs, but this is not fundamentally different.
It's only one easy statement anyway

[joshuaunity]

The server-side code which processes the form should check if the parent asset really belongs to the same account.

This is now implemented

How about the other things I replied to? Are we on the same page with that?

@nhoening

[nhoening]

The server-side code which processes the form should check if the parent asset really belongs to the same account.

This is now implemented

How about the other things I replied to? Are we on the same page with that?

@nhoening

This is vague. Which things? I checked and I'm not sure what open reply I should look up.

[joshuaunity]

The server-side code which processes the form should check if the parent asset really belongs to the same account.

This is now implemented
How about the other things I replied to? Are we on the same page with that?
@nhoening

This is vague. Which things? I checked and I'm not sure what open reply I should look up.

this part

[nhoening]

This also doesn't happen anymore

If you say so :) I'll take a look in the review.

Isn't this the same as the above

I believe you are correct in this!