As mentioned in commit bc0f04075, a <select> field which submits its
form on change causes many accessibility and usability issues. In this
case there was also an incompatibility with the advanced search filter
which caused a bug solved in commit 541a5fa89.
So the question is where to position the filters and how to display
them. One factor to take into the account is how relevant these filters
are, particularly compared to the links to select the prefered order,
since we don't usually give users the choice of both filters and orders.
Our filters don't really make sense until the valuation phase starts,
since before that phase investments aren't selected nor their
feasibility is decided.
After that phase, the only phase where citizens are really involved
is the final voting; the rest of the phases are done by valuators and
administrators. In the final voting, citizens can only vote on selected
projects, and that's the default filter during that phase.
So these filters are mainly there for information purposes, and not to
help citizens in the phases where they're actually involved (accepting
projects, selecting projects and balloting).
Orders, on the other hand, play a crucial role during the final voting
phase. Since citizens might have already voted for a few projects and
have, let's say, 100,000€ left, ordering by price allows them to find
which projects are within their remaining budget.
In conclusion, orders are more important than filters, and so they
should have a more prominent place.
For consistency with the proposals section, where we've got some links
in the sidebar (bottom part of the page on small screens) providing a
similar funcionality, like accessing selected proposals or archived or
retired proposals, we're moving the investments filters to the sidebar
(bottom part of the page on small screens) as well.
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
