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
We were already using `find_by` most of the time.
Since there are false positives related to our `find_by_slug_or_id!` and
`find_by_manger_login` methods, which cannot be replaced with `find_by`,
I'm adding it indicating the "refactor" severity.
In Ruby, the Kernel class defined the `open` method, which is available
for (almost) every object. So creating a scope with the name `open`
generates a warning indicating we are overwriting the existing `open`
method.
While this warning is pretty much harmless and we could ignore it, it
generates a lot of noise in the logs. So I'm "undefining" the method
before generating the scope, so we don't get the warning all the time.
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.
Usually when we use `try` we actually mean `try!`, which is the same as
the safe navigation operator. However, there are a few cases where we
actually mean to execute a method if the object responds to that method.
In those cases using `try` would actually be OK, but in order to avoid
confusion as to whether we mean to check for `respond_to?` or we mean to
use safe navigation, I'm removing all usages of `try`.
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.
Some of our team members don't like using `do...end` for scopes, and
some other team members don't like using `{ ... }` for multi-line
blocks, so we've agreed to use class methods instead.
Joining two scopes with `+` does not remove duplicate records. Luckily
now that we've upgraded to Rails 5, we can join scopes using `.or`.
The test was testing for the presence of elements, bud didn't test for
duplicate records. Testing the exact contents of the array revealed this
behaviour.
When `valuator_group` was `nil`, `[valuator_group&.investment_ids]` is
evaluated to `nil`, and so we were adding an extra element to the array.
We could add a `compact` call to the resulting array, but I find it
easier to convert `nil` to an array using `to_a`.
When creating a budget investment with an unverified manager (for
example, a manager who isn't part of the local census), there's a
request to `Budgets::InvestmentsController#suggest`. Since the manager
isn't verified, suggestions can't be obtained.
There are serveral ways to fix this problem:
* Add a `suggest` action to Management::Budgets::InvestmentsController,
doing the same thing the main `suggest` action does.
* Give unverified users permission to access investment suggestions
* Give managers permission to access investment suggestions
I've chosen the last one because I thought it was simple and only
changed existing behaviour for managers, but any other solution would be
as valid. I haven't added the `phase: "accepting"` condition to keep it
simple, since a read-only action like this one in the management portal
isn't gonna create security risks.
Investments can be reclassified to a different heading during the participatory budget process.
Whilst we are recording this change of heading in the `previous_heading_id` attribute, we are only keeping the _last_ heading. If there are multiple reclassifications we lose this chain of reclassifications.
In this commit we are adding an `original_heading_id` attribute, that will only be set once, when creating the investment, and will not get lost with multiple reclassificaitons of an investment.
The dates are saved on UTC times on the database. So, for example,
if living in West Australia, `Date.current.beginning_of_day` will be
stored as UTC's yesterday at 15:15:00, while `Date.current.end_of_day`
will be stored as UTC's today at 15:14:59.
When we use the `DATE` database function, PostgreSQL will select the
records with the same UTC date as the current UTC date. However, we need
the records with the same application date (as defined in
`config.time_zone`) as the current application date. The test passed
(for us) because we were using `beginning_of_day + 3.hours` to make sure
we were creating records when the date in Madrid was the same as the UTC
date.
Using a ruby interval for the time condition solves the problem.
