feat: Add avatars

[orronai]

• Added avatars to users tables
• Added a template in order to change or delete avatar
• Added the form and validators for the picture file
• Added tests
• Added translations
• Added to the navbar near the username the avatar (if the user has one)
• Added to gitignore the avatars

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 91.02564% with 7 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 84.34%. Comparing base (9499e89) to head (3052f0b).
⚠️ Report is 39 commits behind head on master.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
lms/lmsdb/bootstrap.py	20.00%	4 Missing ⚠️
lms/models/users.py	92.59%	2 Missing ⚠️
lms/lmsweb/views.py	96.96%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@ Coverage Diff @@## master #331 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 84.18% 84.34% +0.15% 
==========================================
Files 63 64 +1 Lines 2953 3027 +74 ==========================================
+ Hits 2486 2553 +67 - Misses 467 474 +7 

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 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.

[yammesicka]

If you can make it work with the DELETE http verb it'll be awesome. If not, that's also good

[orronai]

for delete http verb we can't just use html - we need also JS functions so I think it'd be more complicated. In addition - because of the implementation of this delete function - we redirect to the users page which is a get method according to my opinion

[yammesicka]

Yeah that's PITA. Agree

[yammesicka]

You can do it with fixture: use file_handler = open(...), then yield file_handler and finally file_handler.close it

[sourcery-ai]

Sourcery Code Quality Report

✅ Merging this PR will increase code quality in the affected files by 0.20%.

Quality metrics	Before	After	Change
Complexity	1.67 ⭐	1.64 ⭐	-0.03 👍
Method Length	36.29 ⭐	36.27 ⭐	-0.02 👍
Working memory	6.56 🙂	6.54 🙂	-0.02 👍
Quality	81.75% ⭐	81.95% ⭐	0.20% 👍

Other metrics	Before	After	Change
Lines	2461	2593	132

Changed files	Quality Before	Quality After	Quality Change
lms/lmsdb/bootstrap.py	81.17% ⭐	81.43% ⭐	0.26% 👍
lms/lmsdb/models.py	84.12% ⭐	84.12% ⭐	0.00%
lms/lmsweb/init.py	64.84% 🙂	59.70% 🙂	-5.14% 👎
lms/lmsweb/views.py	75.40% ⭐	75.73% ⭐	0.33% 👍
lms/models/users.py	89.57% ⭐	90.99% ⭐	1.42% 👍
lms/utils/consts.py	90.75% ⭐	90.29% ⭐	-0.46% 👎
tests/conftest.py	90.98% ⭐	91.05% ⭐	0.07% 👍
tests/test_users.py	83.50% ⭐	84.31% ⭐	0.81% 👍

Here are some functions in these files that still need a tune-up:

File	Function	Complexity	Length	Working Memory	Quality	Recommendation
lms/lmsweb/views.py	comment	13 🙂	202 😞	8 🙂	50.15% 🙂	Try splitting into smaller methods
lms/lmsdb/models.py	Solution.status	1 ⭐	118 🙂	17 ⛔	55.65% 🙂	Extract out complex expressions
lms/lmsweb/views.py	view	8 ⭐	140 😞	10 😞	56.16% 🙂	Try splitting into smaller methods. Extract out complex expressions
lms/lmsweb/views.py	login	5 ⭐	129 😞	12 😞	56.69% 🙂	Try splitting into smaller methods. Extract out complex expressions
lms/lmsdb/models.py	Solution._base_next_unchecked	0 ⭐	95 🙂	20 ⛔	57.42% 🙂	Extract out complex expressions

Legend and Explanation

The emojis denote the absolute quality of the code:

• ⭐ excellent
• 🙂 good
• 😞 poor
• ⛔ very poor

The 👍 and 👎 indicate whether the quality has improved or gotten worse with this pull request.

---

Please see our documentation here for details on how these metrics are calculated.

We are actively working on this report - lots more documentation and extra metrics to come!

Help us improve this quality report!