Fix incorrect and failing reservation rule lists

[ddabble]

Proposed changes

APIReservationRuleListView inherited by mistake from MachineRelatedViewMixin instead of MachineTypeRelatedViewMixin, and the rest of the code was working with the assumption that the URL path's <int:pk> segment should be the PK of a machine type, like:

web/src/make_queue/static/make_queue/js/calendar.js

Line 393 in a4de522

$.get(`${window.location.origin}/api/reservation/machinetypes/${this.machineType}/reservationrules/`, {}, (data) => {

So sometimes, the machine type PK in the URL happened to equal the PK of an existing machine, and other times, it did not. This fixes that :)

(Fun fact: This fix was actually applied locally on the server a couple years ago, and has been running there ever since 😅)

Areas to review closely

None in particular.

Checklist

(If any of the points are not relevant, mark them as checked)

• Made sure the base for the PR is dev and not main
• Remembered to run the makemigrations, makemessages and compilemessages management commands and committed any changes that should be included in this PR
• Created tests that fail without the changes, if relevant/possible
• Manually tested that the website UI works as intended with different device layouts
  • (Most common is to test with typical screen sizes for mobile (320-425 px), tablet (768 px) and desktop (1024+ px), which can easily be done with your browser's dev tools)
• Manually tested that everything works as intended when logged in as different users locally
  • (This can be e.g. anonymous users (i.e. not being logged in), "normal" non-member users, members of different committees, and superusers)
• Made sure that your code conforms to the code style guides
  • (It's not intended that you read through this whole document, but that you get yourself an overview over its contents, and that you use it as a reference guide / checklist while taking a second look at your code before opening a pull request)
• Attempted to minimize the number of common code smells
  • (See the comment for the previous checkbox)
• Added sufficient documentation - e.g. as comments, docstrings or in the README, if suitable
• Added your changes to the "Unreleased" section of the changelog - mainly the changes that are of particular interest to users and/or developers, if any
• Added a "Deployment notes" section above, if anything out of the ordinary should be done when deploying these changes to the server
• Structured your commits reasonably
  • (Some tips on this can be found in "Write Better Commits, Build Better Projects" and in the code style guides)
  • (Restructuring commits after they've already been committed, can be done using e.g. interactive rebase; see the Git docs on rewriting history)

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 88.17%. Comparing base (5715a77) to head (1d4aef5).
Report is 3 commits behind head on dev.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##              dev     #756   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   88.17%   88.17%           
=======================================
  Files         152      152           
  Lines        6198     6198           
=======================================
  Hits         5465     5465           
  Misses        733      733           

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
src/make_queue/api/views.py	96.87% <100.00%> (ø)

🚀 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.