Test consensus: merging, ver 2

[archibald1418]

Depends on #9178

Motivation and context

Test coverage for merging feature in consensus jobs (#8953)
Commits were cherry-picked from #9190

How has this been tested?

Case 1: check new merge buttons exist and are visible.

New freshly created jobs have status 'new'. Trying to merge new jobs should result in error notifications and a HTTP 400 status code. All notifications are closed before the next testcase

Case 2: Check consensus management page

Consensus management page has settings for consensus quorum and minimum annotation overlap. Check that the page has fields for both options. If a field is filled incorrectly the form turns red and a message appears under the form. Trying to save options with erroneous forms should do nothing - no requests are sent, no errors shown.

Case 3: Create annotations and check that job replicas merge correctly

Create annotations with one rectangle in job replicas. The rectangle is moved with a step in each job's first frame. This means that after merging, the consensus job will have a rectangle which has to fully match a rectangle inside the replica in the middle.

• Create annotations.
• Merge consensus jobs. No errors should appear. A notification message validates the merge, close it
• Go inside consensus job, remember the rectangle's positions
• Go back to the task page using browser's 'Back' button
• After loading the task page, consensus job's status should read competed
• Open the middle job replica. Rectangle should be identical to the previous one

Checklist

• I submit my changes into the develop branch
• I have created a changelog fragment
• I have updated the documentation accordingly
• I have added tests to cover my changes
• I have linked related issues (see GitHub docs)

License

• I submit my code changes under the same MIT License that covers the project.
  Feel free to contact the maintainers if that's a concern.

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 73.65%. Comparing base (2b835e2) to head (cc869b9).
Report is 1 commits behind head on develop.

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           develop    #9193      +/-   ##
===========================================
+ Coverage    73.34%   73.65%   +0.30%     
===========================================
  Files          449      450       +1     
  Lines        45868    45847      -21     
  Branches      3917     3917              
===========================================
+ Hits         33644    33769     +125     
+ Misses       12224    12078     -146     

Components	Coverage Δ
cvat-ui	77.70% <ø> (+0.57%)	⬆️
cvat-server	70.41% <76.12%> (+0.08%)	⬆️

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[klakhov]

I would suggest to use 1 task spec. In before of each describe use headlessCreateTask and delete it in after

[sonarqubecloud]

Quality Gate passed

Issues
4 New issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
0.0% Coverage on New Code
0.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarQube Cloud