fix boefje settings forms for integer fields

[noamblitz]

Changes

The boefje settings form did not work for integer fields because of the max_length field.

Proof

Good to know

• Does this PR introduce or depend on API-incompatible changes? If yes: what do other users/developers need to do or confirm before merging?
  -No
• Does this PR depend on a specific version of a library?
  -No
• Does this PR require config, setup, or .env changes?
  -No

Checklist for author(s):

• This PR comes from a feature or hotfix branch, in line with our git branching strategy;
• I have squashed all commits before merging this PR;
• This PR is "bite-sized" and only focuses on a single issue, problem, or feature;
• If a non-trivial PR: This PR is properly linked to an issue on the project board;
• If a non-trivial PR: I have added screenshots or some other proof that my code does what it is supposed to do;
• I am not reinventing the wheel: there is no high-quality library that already has this feature;
• I have changed the example .env files if I added, removed, or changed any config options, and I have informed others that they need to modify their .env files if required;
• I have performed a self-review of my own code;
• I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas;
• [ x I have made corresponding changes to the documentation, if necessary;
• I have written unit, integration, and end-to-end tests for the change that I made;

## Checklist for functional reviewer(s):
- [ ] If a non-trivial PR: This PR is properly linked to an issue on the project board;
- [ ] I have checked out this branch, and successfully ran `make kat`;
- [ ] I have ran `make test-rf` and all end-to-end Robot Framework tests pass;
- [ ] I confirmed that the PR's advertised `feature` or `hotfix` works as intended;
- [ ] I confirmed that there are no unintended functional regressions in this branch;

### What works:
* _bullet point + screenshot (if useful) per tested functionality_

### What doesn't work:
* _bullet point + screenshot (if useful) per tested functionality_

### Bug or feature?:
* _bullet point + screenshot (if useful) if it is unclear whether something is a bug or an intended feature._

## Checklist for code reviewer(s):
- [ ] The code passes the CI tests and linters;
- [ ] The code does not bypass authentication or security mechanisms;
- [ ] The code does not introduce any dependency on a library that has not been properly vetted;
- [ ] The code does not violate Model-View-Template and our other architectural principles;
- [ ] The code contains docstrings, comments, and documentation where needed;
- [ ] The code prioritizes readability over performance where appropriate;
- [ ] The code conforms to our agreed coding standards.

[underdarknl]

can we make sure to implement the 2 json schema keywords 'minimum' and 'maximum' for number and integer fields?
Also, for integer fields, we should set the html "step" argument to 1.
https://json-schema.org/understanding-json-schema/reference/numeric.html#number

[noamblitz]

Sounds like a good idea! But i would prefer to create a ticket for that as this is purely meant as a bugfix pr

[underdarknl]

Sounds like a good idea! But i would prefer to create a ticket for that as this is purely meant as a bugfix pr

Agreed. I've asked @HeleenSG to design these pages for more complex forms anyway, which would allow us to use more complete JsonSchema's and render those.