Fix advanced search breadcrumb

[ThoWagen]

We realized that the breadcrumb in advanced searches does not include a link back to the search anymore.

Here is a quick fix, but I'm not sure if this is the best way to do it and if there are unwanted side effects. So I created this as a draft and as a starting point for a discussion.

Should we maybe instead call the query parameter for advanced searches sid instead of edit?

[demiankatz]

@ThoWagen, I don't object to changing the edit parameter of the advanced search screen to use sid instead for consistency. If it doesn't introduce too much complexity, it might be worth adding backward-compatible support for the edit parameter just in case (e.g. if referenced in a local custom template), but I think the likely impact is small.

[demiankatz]

One other suggestion: it's probably worth adding a Mink test to cover this. I think we already have a test about editing advanced searches, so it's likely just a matter of adding a new assertion to the existing test. (I can help find it if you're not sure where it is, though hopefully it's not too hard to find).

[ThoWagen]

Thanks @demiankatz! I'm not very familiar with the search memory. But since you don't see any concerns here I just switched from 'edit' to 'sid'. Note that 'edit' is still supported and there is a comment including the 'legacy' keyword for now.

I also added a Mink test case.

[demiankatz]

Thanks, @ThoWagen -- see below for a couple more thoughts, but I think this overall approach should work.

[demiankatz]

Thanks, @ThoWagen!