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.
When configuring phases in a process, we were validating the start date
or the end date is present, the other date is present too.
However, in other parts of the application we were checking whether a
phase is enabled and then assumed its dates were present if the phase
was enabled. However, we weren't validating this behavior, so it was
possible to enable a phase and leaving its dates blank, causing the
application to crash.
So, as suggested by Alberto, we're changing the validation rule so
phase dates are mandatory when a phase is enabled.
With this rule, the old validation rules are not necessary. I've
considered leaving them in order to avoid database inconsistencies.
However, I realized records having a disabled phase with its start and
end dates have always been valid. This means applications checking for
the presence of these dates instead of checking whether the phase is
enabled have never worked properly.
We don't have to change the logic anywhere else because as mentioned we
were already checking phases are enabled before using their dates.
Legislation Processes created through the admin form were getting the default color.
However, Legislation processes created by other means (like the `db:dev_seed` rake task) were not getting these default values.
This feature was originally implemented when we were using Rails 4.
With Rails 5, we can provide default values to all new Legislation processes
and simplify the code at the same time thanks to its `attribute` method.
Related commit:
https://github.com/consul/consul/pull/4080/commits/0b83be6
Rails 5.1 introduced certain changes in the way a record is touched when
the counter cache option is enabled in a belongs to association.
We need to upgrade acts-as-taggable-on so it keeps changing the
`updated_at` attribute when a new tag is added to a record.
Note we now need to reload the records in some cases to get the
`context_tag_list` method to return what we expect. Methods like
`context_tags` however work properly with no need to reload the record.
We were very inconsistent regarding these rules.
Personally I prefer no empty lines around blocks, clases, etc... as
recommended by the Ruby style guide [1], and they're the default values
in rubocop, so those are the settings I'm applying.
The exception is the `private` access modifier, since we were leaving
empty lines around it most of the time. That's the default rubocop rule
as well. Personally I don't have a strong preference about this one.
[1] https://rubystyle.guide/#empty-lines-around-bodies
Having exceptions is better than having silent bugs.
There are a few methods I've kept the same way they were.
The `RelatedContentScore#score_with_opposite` method is a bit peculiar:
it creates scores for both itself and the opposite related content,
which means the opposite related content will try to create the same
scores as well.
We've already got a test to check `Budget::Ballot#add_investment` when
creating a line fails ("Edge case voting a non-elegible investment").
Finally, the method `User#send_oauth_confirmation_instructions` doesn't
update the record when the email address isn't already present, leading
to the test "Try to register with the email of an already existing user,
when an unconfirmed email was provided by oauth" fo fail if we raise an
exception for an invalid user. That's because updating a user's email
doesn't update the database automatically, but instead a confirmation
email is sent.
There are also a few false positives for classes which don't have bang
methods (like the GraphQL classes) or destroying attachments.
For these reasons, I'm adding the rule with a "Refactor" severity,
meaning it's a rule we can break if necessary.
We're using `eq` and `match_array` in most places, but there were a few
places where we were still checking each element is included in the
array. This is a bit dangerous, because the array could have duplicate
elements, and we wouldn't detect them with `include`.
The test or the draft phase legislation filter was using an entirely
different set of records, but was still creating the records used in the
open and past filter as well.
This made it hard to test the filter, since it returned records from
both sets.
Grouping the past and open filters together guarantees their records
won't be created in the phase draft test, and so we can test the exact
contents of the array.
So now we test in depth at the model level, and can be a bit more
relaxed about integration tests for translations.
Note we're defining some extra factories to make sure all translatable
attributes with presence validation rules are mandatory. This way we can
simplify the way we obtain required fields, using `required_attribute?`.
Otherwise, fields having an `unless` condition in their presence
validation rules would count as mandatory even when they're not.
