Simplify recurring contribution template inheritance

[mattwire]

Overview

Template CRM/Contribute/Page/ContributionRecur.tpl is called as an intermediary for CRM/Contribute/Page/ContributionRecurSelector.tpl when we can just call the latter directly.

Before

Chain of templates.

After

Just call it directly and get rid of a big IF in the template.

Technical Details

Comments

Most of the change is just whitespace from removing an "if" from the template

Testing

Make sure that you can still see the list of recurring contributions in the contact summary. And make sure that you can see all the detail when you view a recurring contribution.

[civibot]

(Standard links)

• If this is your first pull-request for CiviCRM, please browse CONTRIBUTING.md for information about the development and testing processes.
• If you are reviewing this pull-request, you may wish to consult the test sites and the Review Standards (long template, short template).

[BettyDolfing]

test this please

[jaapjansma]

• General standards
  • Explain (r-explain)
    • PASS : The goal/problem/solution have been adequately explained in the PR.
    • COMMENT: We still don't know what the problem is, except something with a template. We tested it and everything still seems to work.
  • User impact (r-user)
    • PASS: The change would be intuitive or unnoticeable for a majority of users who work with this feature.
  • Documentation (r-doc)
    • PASS: The changes do not require documentation.
  • Run it (r-run)
    • PASS: We created a contribution page for sign up of recurring contributions. We used the dummy payment processor for this. We then signed up for a recurring contribution and we checked the contact summary screen and then the section for contributions --> recurring contributions. We pressed view and everything worked as expected.
• Developer standards
  • Technical impact (r-tech)
    • PASS: The change potentially affects compatibility, but the risks have been sufficiently managed.
  • Code quality (r-code)
    • PASS: The functionality, purpose, and style of the code seems clear+sensible.
  • Maintainability (r-maint)
    • PASS: The change is trivial enough that it does not require tests.
  • Test results (r-test)
    • PASS: The test results are all-clear.

@eileenmcnaughton can you merge this PR?

[BettyDolfing]

The failing test has nothing to do with this PR. So I would assume this could be safely merged.

[eileenmcnaughton]

OK - the fail does seem unrelated

We should use the [REF] in the PR title to make it easier for reviewers to see that there should be code maintenance improvements but no actual change in a PR (this was originally [NFC] but then that became only used for comments & spelling due to Tim challenging the NFC-ness of some of them

[eileenmcnaughton]

@mattwire @jaapjansma looks like this caused a regression - the enable / disable buttons broke as a result of the very first line in this change

https://lab.civicrm.org/dev/core/-/issues/1961