Checkbox "Available" doesn't work for Views in project detail

[RH-DIPF]

Description / Beschreibung

Since patch 2.4, all “Views” are always visible to all users, even when the “Available” checkbox is not selected.
This issue only affects “Views”; the checkbox for "catalogs" still works as expected.

Expected behaviour / Erwartetes Verhalten

When the checkbox "Available" is marked, the view should not be visible for normal users.

Context / Kontext

Windows11, multiple Browsers (Edge, Firefox), version 2.4.

[MyPyDavid]

you are not using the sync feature right?! (via the PROJECT_VIEWS_SYNCsetting, https://rdmo.readthedocs.io/en/latest/configuration/projects.html#automatically-synchronize-tasks-and-views-to-projects)

For the normal case (without sync), I would think that maybe a filter for availability could be missing from here:
https://github.com/rdmorganiser/rdmo/blame/cda25edd6e621eea8906a09cf51c4366f004d1d6/rdmo/projects/views/project.py#L92

[RH-DIPF]

We do use the sync feature. But the bug appears in both cases: For views with a assigned catalog the "unavailable" view appears only on project with this catalog. For views without a catalog the view appears in all projects. Swichting between catalogs works as expected. But the views that should be invisible are visible.

[MyPyDavid]

I think I've added a fix now in this PR #1524 , it's a bit tricky to reproduce but I think that the expected behaviour should be implemented with this fix.
So with the new behaviour when a view does not have any catalogs it will not show up in any projects. Before it was that a view without catalogs could show up in all projects. The available checkbox should function as expected and determine whether views are 'available' at all or not.

[jochenklar]

Ok, now I was able to reproduce the Bug. I think it happens only when creating a new project, since filter_tasks_or_views_for_project does not check for availability.

I implemented a small fix here: #1529. The problem is that, when syncing views/tasks and projects automatically, using the user of the request makes no sense. I think we should check that all owners are managers, when deciding if availability gets overridden.