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.
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
For the HashAlignment rule, we're using the default `key` style (keys
are aligned and values aren't) instead of the `table` style (both keys
and values are aligned) because, even if we used both in the
application, we used the `key` style a lot more. Furthermore, the
`table` style looks strange in places where there are both very long and
very short keys and sometimes we weren't even consistent with the
`table` style, aligning some keys without aligning other keys.
Ideally we could align hashes to "either key or table", so developers
can decide whether keeping the symmetry of the code is worth it in a
case-per-case basis, but Rubocop doesn't allow this option.
Adding, modifiying, and/or deleting questions for an already started
poll is far away from being democratic and can lead to unwanted side
effects like missing votes in the results or stats.
So, from now on, only modifiying questions will be possible only if
the poll has not started yet.
We need to update a couple of tests because a poll is created in the
tests with a timestamp that includes nanoseconds and in the form to edit
the time of the poll the nanoseconds are not sent, meaning it was
detected as a change.
We were already saving it as a time, but we didn't offer an interface to
select the time due to lack of decent browser support for this field
back when this feature was added.
However, nowadays all major browsers support this field type and, at the
time of writing, at least 86.5% of the browsers support it [1]. This
percentage could be much higher, since support in 11.25% of the browsers
is unknown.
Note we still need to support the case where this field isn't supported,
and so we offer a fallback and on the server side we don't assume we're
always getting a time. We're doing a strange hack so we set the field
type to text before changing its value; otherwise old Firefox browsers
crashed.
Also note that, until now, we were storing end dates in the database as
a date with 00:00 as its time, but we were considering the poll to be
open until 23:59 that day. So, in order to keep backwards compatibility,
we're adding a task to update the dates of existing polls so we get the
same behavior we had until now.
This also means budget polls are now created so they end at the
beginning of the day when the balloting phase ends. This is consistent
with the dates we display in the budget phases table.
Finally, there's one test where we're using `beginning_of_minute` when
creating a poll. That's because Chrome provides an interface to enter a
time in a `%H:%M` format when the "seconds" value of the provided time
is zero. However, when the "seconds" value isn't zero, Chrome provides
an interface to enter a time in a `%H:%M:%S` format. Since Capybara
doesn't enter the seconds when using `fill_in` with a time, the test
failed when Capybara tried to enter a time in the `%H:%M` format when
Chrome expected a time in the `%H:%M:%S` format.
To solve this last point, an alternative would be to manually provide
the format when using `fill_in` so it includes the seconds.
[1] https://caniuse.com/mdn-html_elements_input_type_datetime-local
This was the only place where we used the `? <= field` format; we use
the `field >= ?` format everywhere else.
We're also adding a variable to make it easier to understand that the
value is the same in both cases and to make the line shorter ;).
We're not adding the rule because it would apply the current line length
rule of 110 characters per line. We still haven't decided whether we'll
keep that rule or make lines shorter so they're easier to read,
particularly when vertically splitting the editor window.
So, for now, I'm applying the rule to lines which are about 90
characters long.
The scopes `created_by_admin` and `public_polls` were very similar. I'm
using `created_by_admin` because `Poll.public_polls` feels redundant,
and the reason for that name is we should not name the scope `public`
because `public` is a ruby access modifier.
Not doing so has a few gotchas when working with relations, particularly
with records which are not stored in the database.
I'm excluding the related content file because it's got a very peculiar
relationship with itself: the `has_one :opposite_related_content` has no
inverse; the relation itself is its inverse. It's a false positive since
the inverse condition is true:
```
content.opposite_related_content.opposite_related_content.object_id ==
content.object_id
```
Usually when we specify a `belongs_to` relations, we also specify its
equivalent `has_many`. That allows us to write, for example:
`topic.user.topics`.
We were inconsistent on this one. I consider it particularly useful when
a method starts with a `return` statement.
In other cases, we probably shouldn't have a guard rule in the middle of
a method in any case, but that's a different refactoring.
Joining two scopes with `+` does not remove duplicate records. Luckily
now that we've upgraded to Rails 5, we can join scopes using `.or`.
The test was testing for the presence of elements, bud didn't test for
duplicate records. Testing the exact contents of the array revealed this
behaviour.
System count isn't a relevant number because the important one is the
number of votes counted by poll officers. We're still maintaining it for
a month in case poll officers would like to review the results.
Joining the translations table caused duplicate records to appear.
Ordering with SQL is simply too hard because we need to consider
fallback locales.
Thanks Senén for providing most of the tests in the poll spec.
Budget polls behave slightly differently to non-budget polls.
In budget polls we use Budget::Ballot::Lines to verify if a user has already voted online. In non-budget polls we use Poll::Voter to verify this.
In this commit we are adding an extra check to make sure that the correct message is displayed if the user has already voted online for a budget poll[1]
[1] https://github.com/AyuntamientoMadrid/consul/blob/master/spec/features/budget_polls/voter_spec.rb#L122
This table will store which reports (stats, results, ...) will be shown
for a certain process (polls, budgets, ...).
Note Rails fails to save a poll and its report when both are new records
if we add a `validate :process, presence: true` rule. Since it caused a
lot of trouble when creating records for tests during factories rule
completely. Instead, I've created the `results_enabled=` and
`stats_enabled=` methods, so tests are easier to set up, while also
automatically creating a report if it doesn't already exist. This also
decouples form structure and database implemenation.
Originally I named this table `enabled_reports` and instead of having
`stats` and `results` columns, it had an `enabled` column and a `kind`
column, which would be set to "stats" or "results". However, although
that table would allow us to add arbitrary reports easily, I found the
way we had to handle the `has_many` relationship was a bit too complex.
We need a way to manually expire the cache for a budget or poll without
expiring the cache of every budget or poll.
Using the `updated_at` column would be dangerous because most of the
times we update a budget or a poll, we don't need to regenerate their
stats.
We've considered adding a `stats_updated_at` column to each of these
tables. However, in that case we would also need to add a similar column
in the future to every process type whose stats we want to generate.
We have two models called `Answer`: The `Answer` model and the `Poll::Answer` model.
This conflict ocurrs when trying to create a user generated poll for a proposal. from the Dashboard. In that case we are getting an exception, only in the development environment, as the class `Answer` is loaded before the class `Poll::Answer` which is the one we want to use.
With this commit we are explicitly requiring the correct model, solving the class conflict.
Some queries were accessing original column instead of the new
translatable one. This should have been causing unexpected behavior
for requests maded in a different locale than the application default.
