[Issues 708 & 710] Refactor forms to use reusable Jinja partials

[oludaara]

Summary

This PR implements reusable Jinja form partials to eliminate code duplication between the application form and job posting form, addressing issues #708 and #710.

Issues Addressed

• Fixes Refactor Application form to reusable Jinja partial #708: Refactor Application form to reusable Jinja partial
• Fixes Refactor Post a job form to use application form Jinja partial #710: Refactor Post a job form to use application form Jinja partial

Changes Made

New Files Created:

• templates/_form_macros.html - Reusable Jinja macros for form components
• static/css/forms.css - Shared form styles

Files Modified:

• templates/app-form.html - Refactored to use new form macros
• templates/job-form.html - Refactored to use new form macros with payment integration

Macros Implemented:

• form_wrapper() - Overall form structure with optional payment integration
• fieldset() - Fieldset grouping with optional legend
• input_field() - Text input fields with required/optional labeling
• textarea_field() - Textarea fields with configurable rows
• radio_group() - Radio button groups with flexible data structure support
• checkbox_field() - Individual checkbox fields
• conduct_checkbox() - Reusable code of conduct agreement checkbox

Key Features:

• ✅ DRY Principle: Eliminates code duplication between forms
• ✅ Maintainability: Centralized form components for easier updates
• ✅ Flexibility: Macros support both required and optional fields
• ✅ Payment Integration: Job form supports payment flow through include_payment parameter
• ✅ Backward Compatibility: Maintains all existing functionality
• ✅ Consistent Styling: Shared CSS ensures uniform appearance

Testing

• Both forms maintain their original functionality
• Application form renders correctly with new macros
• Job posting form renders correctly with payment integration
• All form fields preserve their required/optional status
• Radio buttons and checkboxes work as expected

Scope

As specified in the original issues:

• ✅ Issue Refactor Application form to reusable Jinja partial #708: Application form refactored to use reusable partials
• ✅ Issue Refactor Post a job form to use application form Jinja partial #710: Job form refactored to use the new partials
• ❌ Out of scope: Style updates (only shared styles added)
• ❌ Out of scope: Refactoring other forms beyond these two

[daaimah123]

@oludaara Great first iteration! Request for changes are as follows:

• reset this PR to point to mvp branch not develop complete
• merge latest from mvp branch onto this work as it houses all of the latest information with the application form and some updated folder-architecture complete
• please follow our styling guidelines for the css / scss additions complete

Please be sure to address the request for changes using our pull request best practices and @-me once you are ready for another review. Here is a reminder of those best practices:

• Acknowleding each request for change (i.e. feedback was marked with an emoji reaction to show its accepted).
• Provide a written response to the request for changes in one of the following ways:
  1. summary comment addressing each individual request for change stating how and where (the commit hash referenced) you made the change
  2. reply to each comments generated via GitHub in your generated request for change
  3. share an alternative thought with explanation of why you do not wish to implement the request for change or ask any clarifying questions
• Once actively stating how you've addressed a request for change alongside referencing the hash in which the change was made, mark the comment as "resolved".

[daaimah123]

@oludaara Does this PR need to be closed? It seems like a first iteration of PR #780

Alternatively, in the future you can update your base branch (where the PR will be merged into) by editing your PR title. Underneath the title text input field, is a dropdown with a base branch option. You can click into this and update the branch to another one 🚀

[oludaara]

Yes this PR needs to be closed

Didn't Know there was a work around for that, Thanks.