We were tracking some events with Ahoy, but in an inconsistent way. For
example, we were tracking when a debate was created, but (probably
accidentally) we were only tracking proposals when they were created
from the management section. For budget investments and their supports,
we weren't using Ahoy events but checking their database tables instead.
And we were only using ahoy events for the charts; for the other stats,
we were using the real data.
While we could actually fix these issues and start tracking events
correctly, existing production data would remain broken because we
didn't track a certain event when it happened. And, besides, why should
we bother, for instance, to track when a debate is created, when we can
instead access that information in the debates table?
There are probably some features related to tracking an event and their
visits, but we weren't using them, and we were storing more user data
than we needed to.
So we're removing the track events, allowing us to simplify the code and
make it more consistent. We aren't removing the `ahoy_events` table in
case existing Consul Democracy installations use it, but we'll remove it
after releasing version 2.2.0 and adding a warning in the release notes.
This change fixes the proposal created chart, since we were only
tracking proposals created in the management section, and opens the
possibility to add more charts in the future using data we didn't track
with Ahoy.
Also note the "Level 2 user Graph" test wasn't testing the graph, so
we're changing it in order to test it. We're also moving it next to the
other graphs test and, since we were tracking the event when we were
confirming the phone, we're renaming to "Level 3 users".
Finally, note that, since we were tracking events when something was
created, we're including the `with_hidden` scope. This is also
consistent with the other stats shown in the admin section as well as
the public stats.
When customizing CONSUL, one of the most common actions is adding a new
field to a form.
This requires modifying the permitted/allowed parameters. However, in
most cases, the method returning these parameters returned an instance
of `ActionController::Parameters`, so adding more parameters to it
wasn't easy.
So customizing the code required copying the method returning those
parameters and adding the new ones. For example:
```
def something_params
params.require(:something).permit(
:one_consul_attribute,
:another_consul_attribute,
:my_custom_attribute
)
end
```
This meant that, if the `something_params` method changed in CONSUL, the
customization of this method had to be updated as well.
So we're extracting the logic returning the parameters to a method which
returns an array. Now this code can be customized without copying the
original method:
```
alias_method :consul_allowed_params, :allowed_params
def allowed_params
consul_allowed_params + [:my_custom_attribute]
end
```
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.
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.
