We were getting a 500 Internal Server Error because `find_by` returned
`nil`, but the code assumed it returned an object responding to
`encrypted_password`. In this case, maybe some other status code (like
400 or 401) might be more appropriate, but I've kept 404 because it was
easier to implement and I wasn't sure which one was better.
Also note ideally we would test the controller using:
expect(response).to have_http_status(:not_found)
However, we would need to configure the test to show exceptions and not
to consider all requests local. I haven't been able to do so for
controller tests, and doing so for feature/request specs seems to
require changes in the test environment configuration which would affect
other tests.
This section is used to select to which poll a question belongs to.
Budget polls are not meant to include questions that come from Citizen
Proposals or Government Questions, thus we do not display them
This way we can easily add a test which will fail if by accident we
change the method to use `Date.today`. Until now using `Date.today`
would only fail if we ran specs in a time zone with a different date.
From now on these static pages:
`/privacy'
`/conditions'
`/accesibility'
`/help/faq'
`/welcome'
have been moved to the DB and can be modified easily by any
administrator in `/admin/site_customization/pages'
This commit backports commit AyuntamientoMadrid@90638672 and the changes
that code has been through:
* AyuntamientoMadrid@03371a71 removed daily recounts in the controller
* AyuntamientoMadrid@fe3492a7 removed daily recounts in the view
* AyuntamientoMadrid@aa59d995 replaced FinalRecount with TotalResult
* AyuntamientoMadrid@c40e8d79 replaced TotalResult with Recount
When params[:budget_investment][:valuation_tag_list] was not present,
which is the case when updating an investment using the "mark as visible
to valuators" checkbox, we were removing all valuation tags.
Using a virtual attribute to assign the tags only if the parameter is
present simplifies the code in the controller and avoids the issue.
Using `setseed` and ordering by `RAND()` doesn't always return the same
results because, although the generated random numbers will always be
the same, PostgreSQL doesn't guarantee the order of the rows it will
apply those random numbers to, similar to the way it doesn't guarantee
an order when the `ORDER BY` clause isn't specified.
Using something like `reorder("legislation_proposals.id % #{seed}")`,
like we do in budget investments, is certainly more elegant but it makes
the test checking two users get different results fail sometimes, so
that approach might need some adjustments in order to make the results
more random.
