The link to show stats for these polls is nowhere to be seen in the
application, and these stats are included in the budget stats, so it
makes sense to restrict access to them.
When defining abilities, scopes cover more cases because they can be
used to check permissions for a record and to filter a collection. Ruby
blocks can only be used to check permissions for a record.
Note the `Budget::Phase.kind_or_later` name sounds funny, probably
because we use the word "phase" for both an an attribute in the budgets
table and an object associated with the budget, and so naming methods
for a budget phase is a bit tricky.
There's no reason to allow administrators to check stats and results for
a poll when it isn't finished or when results and stats are not enabled.
Now admins have the same permissions as everyone else.
* Add custom message for inclusion validation to include the allowed values.
* Force user to choose document_type from select lik the one shown at verification form.
* Convert stored document_type to a human readable text
Although we weren't showing links in the views to execute certain
actions, forms could be still sent using a PUT/PATCH pull request to the
controller actions.
We were adding the condition to show the form in the view. However, that
doesn't prevent users from sending a POST/PUT request to the controller
action.
We could add the condition to the controller as well, but since the
`valuate` permission is only used in one place, it's easier to restrict
that permission to valuators who can edit the dossier.
Since budgets now have milestone tags, the name of this method was
confusing and will conflict with the name generated by acts_as_taggable.
Note the new name could be improved too.
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.
This method is ambiguous. Sometimes we use it to set invalid data in
tests (which can usually be done with `update_column`), and other times
we use it instead of `update!`.
I'm removing it because, even if sometimes it could make sense to use
it, it's too similar to `update_attributes` (which is an alias for
`update` and runs validations), making it confusing.
However, there's one case where we're still using it: in the
ActsAsParanoidAliases module, we need to invoke the callbacks, which
`update_column` skips, but tests related to translations fail if we use
`update!`. The reason for this is the tests check what happens if we
restore a record without restoring its translations. But that will make
the record invalid, since there's a validation rule checking it has at
least one translation.
I'm not blacklisting any other method which skips validations because we
know they skip validations and use them anyway (hopefully with care).
This comment isn't necessary since Ruby 2.0, where UTF-8 became the
default encoding.
I've found this issue thanks to the EmptyLineAfterMagicComment rubocop
rule.
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 were converting markdown to HTML every time we saved a record, which
has the same problems as sanitizing HTML before saving it to the
database, particularly because the body of a legislation draft is stored
in a translations table.
Performance-wise this isn't a problem: converting a text with more than
200_000 characters takes about a milisecond on my machine.
Note we need to modify a migration generated by globalize, since the
method `create_translation_table!` would fail now that we don't define
`translates :body_html` in the model.
Sanitizing descriptions before saving a record has a few drawbacks:
1. It makes the application rely on data being safe in the database. If
somehow dangerous data enters the database, the application will be
vulnerable to XSS attacks
2. It makes the code complicated
3. It isn't backwards compatible; if we decide to disallow a certain
HTML tag in the future, we'd need to sanitize existing data.
On the other hand, sanitizing the data in the view means we don't need
to triple-check dangerous HTML has already been stripped when we see the
method `auto_link_already_sanitized_html`, since now every time we use
it we sanitize the text in the same line we call this method.
We could also sanitize the data twice, both when saving to the database
and when displaying values in the view. However, doing so wouldn't make
the application safer, since we sanitize text introduced through
textarea fields but we don't sanitize text introduced through input
fields.
Finally, we could also overwrite the `description` method so it
sanitizes the text. But we're already introducing Globalize which
overwrites that method, and overwriting it again is a bit too confusing
in my humble opinion. It can also lead to hard-to-debug behaviour.
There were some confusing definitions regarding the valuation of budget
investments.
In the controller, `CommentableActions` was included, which includes the
update action.
In the abilities, a valuator was given permission to update an
investment.
However, the action to update an investment didn't work because there is
no route defined to do so.
The ability was defined so valuators could access the "edit" action,
which will not call the "update" action but the "valuate" action. Since
internally "edit" and "update" use the same permission, it worked.
But then we added permission for regular users to update budget
investments, and these permissions were allowing valuators to update
another user's investment.
After this change, everything seems to work properly since we check
authorization in the controller itself instead of using abilities.
Using the `_html` suffix automatically marks texts as HTML safe, so
doing so on sanitized texts is redundant.
Note flash texts are not sanitized the moment they are generated, but
are sanitized when displayed in the view.
We use this method in two different scenarios. In an AJAX request, we
don't want to return every booth if the search is blank. However, in a
normal HTTP GET request, we want to return every record when the search
is empty, as we do everywhere else.
It's possible the behaviour of the AJAX call is unusual, since it
searches all booths, and not just the ones assigned to a poll. If we
changed this behaviour, we could simplify the code and remove the
`quick_search` method.
We can change the code a bit so the useless assignment is either part of
the setup (where only another variable was present) or isolated in the
"action" part of the test.
These variables can be considered a block, and so removing them doesn't
make the test much harder to undestand.
Sometimes these variables formed the setup, sometimes they formed an
isolated part of the setup, and sometimes they were the part of the test
that made the test different from other tests.
