fix(farmer_registry_demo): Input Subsidy uses manual entitlement approval

[emjay0921]

Why is this change needed?

OP#1122 — Farmer demo data: modify at least one program to not tick auto-approve entitlements. Test pass.

Every demo program auto-approved its entitlements, so a demo could only ever show the cycle-approval stage. The entitlement-approval stage — a real part of the workflow — had nothing to demonstrate it with.

How was the change implemented?

• farmer_demo_generator no longer hard-codes auto_approve_entitlements: True. It reads the flag from the program definition and falls back to True, so every existing demo program is unchanged.
• Input Subsidy opts out. Its cycles still go through cycle approval, so a demo can now walk the full cycle → entitlement-approval chain rather than stopping at the first stage.

Scoped deliberately to one program: the point is to have an example of each behaviour side by side, not to change the default.

New unit tests

Added to spp_farmer_registry_demo/tests/test_demo_generator.py: Input Subsidy generates with auto_approve_entitlements off, and the other demo programs still generate with it on.

Unit tests executed by the author

Re-run after merging 19.0 up (the branch was 64 commits behind):

spp_farmer_registry_demo    0 failed, 0 error(s) of 135 tests

How to test manually

1. Install / regenerate the farmer demo data.
2. Open Programs → Input Subsidy and confirm Auto-approve entitlements is not ticked.
3. Open any other demo program and confirm it still is.
4. Run a cycle on Input Subsidy through to entitlements: the entitlements must land awaiting approval rather than approved, so the approval stage can be demonstrated.

Related links

https://openspp.openproject.com/work_packages/1122

Reviewer notes

The branch was 64 commits behind 19.0 and has been brought up to date by merging, not rebasing, since it was already published — hence the merge commit.

It also carries a readme/HISTORY.md entry and a version bump made when the branch was first written. That predates the convention of keeping those on the main branch after merge; left as-is rather than rewriting published history, but happy to strip them if you would prefer.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 71.50%. Comparing base (c33d3cb) to head (e70aaa8).

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             19.0     #412   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   71.49%   71.50%           
=======================================
  Files         243      243           
  Lines       20785    20790    +5     
=======================================
+ Hits        14860    14865    +5     
  Misses       5925     5925           

Flag	Coverage Δ
spp_base_common	91.07% <ø> (ø)
spp_farmer_registry_demo	61.06% <ø> (ø)
spp_programs	65.27% <ø> (ø)
spp_registry	87.22% <ø> (+0.07%)	⬆️
spp_security	69.56% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
spp_farmer_registry_demo/models/demo_programs.py	100.00% <ø> (ø)
...rmer_registry_demo/models/farmer_demo_generator.py	50.14% <ø> (ø)

... and 1 file with indirect coverage changes

🚀 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.