Allow adding tags to ECK entities

[jensschuppe]

This allows adding tags to ECK entities through a tab on the entity's page.

For now, editing tag assignments is allowed for all users allowed to view the tags page (access CiviCRM permission), which is, of course, unsafe. There should be dedicated permissions for editing tags on entities for each ECK entity type. This PR is therefore a draft.

Also, this requires managed entities be reconciled and the menu router be rebuilt.

[colemanw]

There should be dedicated permissions for editing tags on entities for each ECK entity type

I don't think I agree with this. IMO the permission to view/edit tags on an entity type should be the same as the permission to view/edit entities of that type. So if you have permission to edit an entity of type Foo then you have permission to add tags to it as well. That's how it works with core entities.

But I'm not sure per-entity-type permissions have been implemented? I don't see where that's currently happening, and this is just a fixme:

de.systopia.eck/Civi/Api4/EckEntity.php

Lines 130 to 135 in a4fb482

	/**
	* @return array
	*/
	public static function permissions() {
	return []; // FIXME: Add per-entity-type permissions
	}

Also, this requires managed entities be reconciled and the menu router be rebuilt.

This happens during every upgrade, so it's not something you have to notify users of.

[jensschuppe]

You're correct, @colemanw, the extension does not yet define any permissions, but definitely should; see #34.

I'd be fine with the Edit Foo Entities permission also controlling access to editing tag assignments on entities of that type for now. But the more granular permissions the better, however 🤓. Adding more granular permissions later will cause larger update routines. Also, I can imagine use cases for not letting creators of entities assign them tags. But let's go with what Core does for now.

[jensschuppe]

This will have to be rebased onto #100.

[jensschuppe]

This needs a rebase now that permissions have been implemented (differently) with #100.

I'm also postponing this to after version 1.0.