This monkey-patch doesn't seem to be working with Zeitwerk, and we were
only using it in one place, so the easiest way to solve the problem is
to remove it.
Note that, in the process, we're changing the operation so `* 100`
appears before the division, so it's consistent with other places where
we do similar things (like the `supports_percentage` method in the
proposals helper).
We were using generic names like `args` and `options` which don't really
add anything to `*` or `**` because Ruby required us to.
That's no longer the case in Ruby 3.2, so we can simplify the code a
bit.
Note that the `budget` parameter was added to the `delete_path` method
so it works in the tests; on production, it worked because this
component is only rendered on pages which already have the `budget`
parameter.
Co-authored-by: Javi Martín <javim@elretirao.net>
Since we've changed these scopes in the previous commit because of the
new rubocop version, we're also making them consistent with the other
scopes in the same file.
Note that we keep :created_at order as complement to new :order field.
We do this so that current installations will not notice any change in the
sorting of their cards when upgrading, as the default "order" field will always
be 1, so it will continue to sort by the "created_at".
So now we know where to use the `where.missing` method which was
introduced in Rails 6.1.
Note this rule didn't detect all cases where the new method can be used.
Before this change, two important things depend on the format of each key,
where to render it in the administration panel and which kind of interface
to use for each setting. Following this strategy led us to a very complex
code, very difficult to maintain or modify. So, we do not want to depend
on the setting key structure anymore to decide how or where to render each
setting.
With this commit, we get rid of the key format-based rules. Now we render
each setting explicitly passing to it the type and the tab where it belongs.
This way it won't be possible to browse all user URLs by just going to
/users/1, /users/2, /users/3, ... and collect usernames, which might not
be desirable in some cases.
Note we could use the username as a URL parameter and just find the user
with `@user = User.find_by!(id: id, username: username)`, but since
usernames might contain strange characters, this might lead to
strange/ugly URLs.
Finally, note we're using `username.to_s` in order to cover the case
where the username is `nil` (as is the case with erased users).
This way only verified users will be able to access this page, which
shows the username of the receiver of the direct message. With this,
it's no longer possible for unverified users to browse direct message
URLs in order to collect usernames from every user.
In order to remove metadata from PDF documents we will use the
exiftool_vendored gem.
The following line:
Exiftool.new(attachment_path, "-overwrite_original -all:all=")
Overwrites the original file with another file without metadata.
So far this is the best solution we have found to perform this
metadata deletion.
When using Exiftool an exception is thrown, so we added a rescue
to handle it. Here is a task created where this problem is discussed
in issue 28 in the https://github.com/exiftool-rb/exiftool.rb/ repository.
We'll wait to see if this will be fixed in future versions.
In order to the display a warn text on the last attempt
before the account is locked, we need update
config.paranoid to false as the devise documentation
explains.
Adding "config.paranoid: false" implies further changes
to the code, so for now we unncomment the default value
"config.last_attempt_warning = true" and update it to false.
As far as possible I think the code is clearer if we use CRUD actions
rather than custom actions. This will make it easier to add the action
to remove votes in the next commit.
Note that we are adding this line as we need to validate it that a vote
can be created on a comment by the current user:
```authorize! :create, Vote.new(voter: current_user, votable: @comment)```
We have done it this way and not with the following code as you might
expect, as this way two votes are created instead of one.
```load_and_authorize_resource through: :comment, through_association: :votes_for```
This line tries to load the resource @comment and through the association
"votes_for" it tries to create a new vote associated to that debate.
Therefore a vote is created when trying to authorise the resource and
then another one in the create action, when calling @comment.vote.
As far as possible I think the code is clearer if we use CRUD actions
rather than custom actions. This will make it easier to add the action
to remove votes in the next commit.
Note that we are adding this line as we need to validate it that a vote
can be created on a debate by the current user:
```authorize! :create, Vote.new(voter: current_user, votable: @debate)```
We have done it this way and not with the following code as you might
expect, as this way two votes are created instead of one.
```load_and_authorize_resource through: :debate, through_association: :votes_for```
This line tries to load the resource @debate and through the association
"votes_for" it tries to create a new vote associated to that debate.
Therefore a vote is created when trying to authorise the resource and
then another one in the create action, when calling @debate.vote_by (which
is called by @debate.register_vote).
This syntax has been added in Ruby 3.1.
Not using a variable name might not be very descriptive, but it's just
as descriptive as using "block" as a variable name. Using just `&` we
get the same amount of information than using `&block`: that we're
passing a block.
We're still using `&action` in `around_action` methods because here we
aren't using a generic name for the variable, so (at least for now) we
aren't running this cop on controllers using `around_action`.
This rule was added in rubocop 1.44.0. It's useful to avoid accidental
`unless !condition` clauses.
Note we aren't replacing `unless zero?` with `if nonzero?` because we
never use `nonzero?`; using it sounds like `if !zero?`.
Replacing `unless any?` with `if none?` is only consistent if we also replace
`unless present?` with `if blank?`, so we're also adding this case. For
consistency, we're also replacing `unless blank?` with `if present?`.
We're also simplifying code dealing with `> 0` conditions in order to
make the code (hopefully) easier to understand.
Also for consistency, we're enabling the `Style/InverseMethods` rule,
which follows a similar idea.
We originally added the `cached_votes_up > 0` in commit 4ce95e273
because back then `cached_votes_up` was used in the denominator. That's
no longer the case, and it doesn't make sense to mark a debate with 1
vote and 10 flags as conflictive but not doing it when the debate has no
votes and 1000 flags.
We're fixing the bug right now because we're about to change the
affected line in order to apply a new rubocop rule.
Note we're excluding a few files:
* Configuration files that weren't generated by us
* Migration files that weren't generated by us
* The Gemfile, since it includes an important comment that must be on
the same line as the gem declaration
* The Budget::Stats class, since the heading statistics are a mess and
having shorter lines would require a lot of refactoring
