Banners created through the admin form were getting the default color.
However, banners 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 banners and
simplify the code at the same time thanks to its `attribute` method.
Now, when creating a new banner, instead of getting a blank space, we
get an empty line with the banner's default background color, which most
users won't know what it's about until they fill in the banner's title.
So we're not displaying the content of the banner when it's empty,
thanks to the `:empty` CSS pseudoclass.
In some sections we had negative top margins to compensate the header
bottom margin. However, when adding a banner between the header and
those sections, the negative margin caused the content of those sections
to overlap with the content of the banner.
Removing the negative margins when a banner is present solves the issue.
We were displaying two progress bars for the same thing, and hiding one
of them.
Displaying just one of them and readjusting the styles accordingly is a
bit more intuitive IMHO.
We're also getting the text inside the progress bar out of it; its
purpose inside an element with the `progressbar` role is to provide the
same information as the progress bar (which we aren't exactly doing,
although it could be argued that we do), and in order to be accessible
we should provide the same text in the `aria-valuetext` field, which we
aren't doing. This also simplifies our CSS, which was working because we
defined a padding which covered the height of the hidden extra progress
bar and would have needed quite a few changes if we kept just one
progress bar with text inside it. We can also remove a few CSS rules
which we added to override foundation's rules for the
`progress-meter-text` class.
We were using inline styles and passing local variables around, while
the rule we were following is very simple: it's only hidden if it's a
form to reply to a comment.
We were using a <ul> tag for a single comment, where the first element
of the list was the comment itself and the second element was the list
of replies.
IMHO it makes more sense to have a list of all comments, where every
element is a comment and inside it there's a list of replies.
We're also rendering the list even if it has no children so it's easier
to add comments through JavaScript. Then we use the :empty CSS selector
to hide the list if it's empty. However, since ERB adds whitespace if we
structure our code the usual way and current browsers don't recognize
elements with whitespace as empty, we have to use the `tag` helper so no
whitespace is added.
We were using `overflow: scroll` as a workaround with a problem we had
with the equalizer. But now we never need an extra vertical scroll bar,
and we only need an extra horizontal scroll bar on small screens.
Since the dashboard was using the class `admin-content` as well, we need
to apply to the dashboard the same changes we've done in the admin
section. I've extracted them into a mixin.
In some situations where JavaScript makes content disappear, the height
of the element calculated by foundation's equalizer isn't recalculated,
leaving blank space at the bottom of the page. I've seen cases where a
blank vertical space of 2000 pixels is on the page.
Using flexbox solves the problem, since CSS takes care of everything.
This is a hack: we're making the textarea have the same size as CKEditor
so when it's replaced the page won't jump.
A very similar hack was removed in commit e844b0b2. Back then I thought
this was a small issue we could live with, but the user experience turns
out to be a bit annoying, and it makes tests fail sometimes because
Capybara is trying to click something when the page jumps, and so it
misses the click.
This feature wasn't properly tested nor reviewed, and after reviewing
several pull requests with a similar status and considering this pull
request is related to the public area of the web, we've decided to
remove it before releasing version 1.1.
This commit reverts commit 4f50e67a.
Our manual implementation had a few issues. In particular, it didn't
track changes related to associations, which became more of an issue
when we made investments translatable.
Using audited gives us more functionality while at the same time
simplifies our code. However, it adds one more external dependency to
our project.
The reason for choosing audited over paper trail is audited seems to
make it easier to handle associations.
Unfortunately this feature wasn't properly reviewed and tested, and it
had many bugs, some of them critical and hard to fix, like validations
being skipped in concurrent requests.
So we're removing it before releasing version 1.1. We might add it back
in the future if we manage to solve the critical issues.
This commit reverts commit 836f9ba7.
Internet Explorer 9 was released eight years ago. Besides that, we don't
really support IE8 anyway, since we show a popup to IE8 users saying
we don't support it, we haven't maintained the IE8-specific CSS file for
years, and we don't test our JavaScript against IE8.
