We were using this hack in order to allow `File.new` attachments in
tests files. However, we can use the `fixture_file_upload` helper
instead.
Just like it happened with `file_fixture`, this helper method doesn't
work in fixtures, so in this case we're using `Rack::Test::UploadedFile`
instead.
This way we don't have to write `"spec/fixtures/files"` every time.
Note this method isn't included in factories. We could include it like
so:
```
FactoryBot::SyntaxRunner.class_eval do
include ActiveSupport::Testing::FileFixtures
self.file_fixture_path = RSpec.configuration.file_fixture_path
end
```
However, I'm not sure about the possible side effects, and since we only
use attachments in a few factories, there isn't much gain in applying
the monkey-patch.
We were using custom rules because of some issues with Paperclip. These
rules work fine, but since we're already using the file_validators gem,
we might as well simplify the code a little bit.
The code is based on what's generated using CKEditor's code generator.
We're doing one minor change to the `Ckeditor::Backend::ActiveStorage`
module; we're assigning the data in a `before_validation` instead of a
`before_save` callback. Validations with `file_validations` didn't work
otherwise; it looks like this backend was written with
`active_storage_validations` in mind [1].
Note we don't need to update the `name` column in the attachments table
because, when using Active Storage, CKEditor uses both `data` (as
attribute accessor) and `storage_data` (as attachment attribute).
[1] https://github.com/galetahub/ckeditor/blob/f9e48420ccb6dc/lib/generators/ckeditor/templates/active_record/active_storage/ckeditor/picture.rb#L4
Since we're going to remove Paperclip and Active Storage doesn't provide
any validations, we have to either write our own validation rules or use
a different gem.
We're using the file_validators gem instead of the
`active_storage_validations` gem because the latter doesn't support
proc/lambda objects in size and content type definitions. We need to use
them because in our case these values depend on settings stored in the
database.
Just like we did with regular attachments, we're moving the logic to
generate URLs out of the model.
Note we're changing the `image_path_for` helper method in order to
return a `polymorphic_path` because sometimes it's used in combination
with `favicon_link_tag`, and `favicon_link_tag` doesn't automatically
generate a polymorphic URL when given an `ActiveStorage::Attachment`
record.
This fixes a few issues we've had for years.
First, when attaching an image and then sending a form with validation
errors, the image preview would not be rendered when the form was
displayed once again. Now it's rendered as expected.
Second, when attaching an image, removing it, and attaching a new
one, browsers were displaying the image preview of the first one. That's
because Paperclip generated the same URL from both files (as they both
had the same hash data and prefix). Browsers usually cache images and
render the cached image when getting the same URL.
Since now we're storing each image in a different Blob, the images have
different URLs and so the preview of the second one is correctly
displayed.
Finally, when users downloaded a document, they were getting files with
a very long hexadecimal hash as filename. Now they get the original
filename.
This way we fix a bug we mentioned in commit 930bb753c which caused
links to documents to be broken when editing their title because the
title was used to generate the URL of the document.
Note we're still using Paperclip to render cached attachments because
this is the only case where we store files with just Paperclip and not
Active Storage.
With Active Storage, we render attachments just like any other resource,
using `polymorphic_path`. Paperclip included the `url` method in the
model; since the model doesn't have access to the request parameters
(like the host), this was inconvenient because it wasn't possible to
generate absolute URLs with Paperclip.
In order to simplify the code and make it similar to the way we used
Paperclip, we're adding a `variant` method accepting the name of a
variant and returning the variant.
Defining a behavior on hover means making it different for people using
a keyboard or a touchscreen (most of the population, nowadays).
In this case, we had an accessibility issue where the message wouldn't
disappear once it appeared. That meant that, after tabbing through all
the links and buttons in, for instance, the debates index, the page
would be filled with "participation not allowed" messages, and in order
to see the information about how many people have voted, reloading the
page was required.
For touchscreen users the behavior was similar to what we get on hover,
although we've found some inconsistencies when trying to support several
elements on the same page.
We think in proposals it makes sense to hide the "support" button when
users click on it, and the same applies to the buttonsto support and
vote investment projects. However, we aren't hiding the buttons to
agree/disagree with a debate in order to keep the information about the
current number of people agreeing and disagreeing visible.
Note we're removing some support spec methods because after these
changes the duplication isn't as obvious as it was in the past.
We were using the same logic six times regarding when we should show a
"participation not allowed" message. Since we're going to change the
current behavior, we're unifying the logic in one place so the changes
will be easier.
Hovering over the votes showed a "participation not allowed" message
which was annoying when scrolling with the browser or simply moving the
mouse around the page. Furthermore, it hid the information about the
number of votes, links to show/collapse replies, ...
We're planning to change the behavior of all the "participation not
allowed" messages in order to show them on click instead of showing them
on hover (just like it's done on touchscreens). In the case of comments,
supports, however, there's very limited space in the part showing the
number of supports for comments, so adding this message without breaking
the layout is challenging.
So, for now, we're simply redirecting unauthenticated users to the login
page. If find an easy way to implement a better user interface in the
future to display the "participation not allowed" message, we might
change this behaviour.
This message is only shown in the `show` action, so it's shown at most
once in the whole page, so it doesn't take up too much space and it
isn't as overwhelming as if we were showing it on the index page, once
per debate.
We're only showing it when there are closed options, though, since
there's already a message to sign in to comment when the question
accepts open answers.
Note we're using the in-favor HTML class instead of the in_favor class
so we're consistent with our conventions for HTML classes and because we
use the in-favor class in similar places.
Also note the styles of the legislation process annotations/comments
buttons is now similar to the styles in the other sections. Previously,
the colors didn't have enough contrast and there was a very strange
margin between the "thumbs up" icon and the number of people agreeing
(that margin wasn't present between the "thumbs down" icon and the
number of people disagreeing).
As mentioned in commits 5311daadf and bb958daf0, using links combined
with JavaScript to generate POST requests to the server has a few
issues.
We're also improving the keyboard access. Previously, the links were
focusable and clickable with the keyboard. Now we're disabling the
buttons when voting isn't allowed.
Since these elements can no longer be focused, we're adding an element
with `tabindex="0"` so the "participation not allowed" message is shown,
like we do in most places.
Note we're slightly changing one test because now when hovering over the
button on Chrome, the "participation not allowed" text isn't shown; it's
only shown when hovering on the parts of the `div.ballot` element
outside the button. Since we're already rewriting the behavior of the
"participation not allowed" text in a different pull request, we aren't
going to fix this behavior.
Using the `flex-with-gap` mixin we avoid the left margin in the second
element when the screen space isn't wide enough to show both buttons.
Setting the margins with CSS also allows as to simplify the view and
makes it easier to customize styles.
Having buttons (previously links) with the text "I agree 75%" is
confusing; people might believe they're saying they only partially agree
with the content. Besides, the results percentages is a different piece
of information which shouldn't be related to whether one person
agrees/disagrees with the content.
This problem might be solved for people using screen readers since we
added the aria-label attribute. However, for sighted keyboard users, the
percentage was being outlined on focus as part of the button, which
might be confusing.
Note we're using the `budgets.investments.investment.add_label` and
`budgets.ballots.show.remove_label` internationalization keys so they're
consistent with the `budgets.investments.investment.add` and
`budgets.ballots.show.remove` keys which were already present. We aren't
unifying these keys in order to keep existing translations.
This way blind screen reader users will know which proposal they're
supporting. In a list of proposals, context might not be clear when a
link saying "Support" or "Support this proposal" is announced, but a
link saying "Support Create a monthly transport ticket" is less
ambiguous.
Just like we did with investments in commit de436e33a, we're keeping the
title attribute because when visiting a proposal page, the connection
between the "Support" link and the proposal is not as clear as it is in
the proposals index page, so it might not be clear what you're
supporting.
We were using the same code to render links to agree and disagree, so we
can extract a new component for this code.
We're also adding component tests to make it easier to test whether
we're breaking anything while refactoring, although the code is probably
already covered by system tests.
Since the votes mixin was only used in one place, we're removing it and
moving most of its code to a new CSS file for the shared component.
Very similar code is present in the `votes.js` file. Since the only
elements with the `js-participation-not-allowed` class also matched the
`div.supports div.participation-not-allowed` selector, for these
elements the events were executed twice.
So we can get rid of the `js-participation` class alongside all the
JavaScript code referencing it.
When there isn't a current user, the links can't be clicked, so there's
no real point in them being links.
When there's a current user and they cannot vote (for example, an
organization), having a link/button to an action they can't perform
isn't that useful IMHO. They get a message saying they aren't allowed to
vote but the message doesn't say why. However, in this case, many people
might try to click/touch the link/button and will wonder why nothing
happens, so we'll revisit this issue when we change the way we display
the "participation not allowed" messages.
Now the behavior is more similar to the one we get when voting
proposals/debates.
This way we can make the view code a bit easier to read.
We're also changing the order of the conditions a little bit so we only
check for the presence of a current user once.
To make sure we aren't breaking anything with these changes, we're
adding some tests. We're also replacing one system test checking content
with a component test, since component tests are much faster.
The action and the views were almost identical, with the supports
progress and the HTML classes of the success message element being the
only exceptions; we can use CSS for the styles instead.
Just like we did in commit 0214184b2d for investments, we're removing
some possible optimizations (we don't have any benchmarks proving they
affect performance at all) in order to simplify the code.
The investement votes component `delegate` code was accidentally left
but isn't used since commit 0214184b2, so we're removing it now that
we're removing the `voted_for?` helper method.
The `legislation_proposals#index` action was never used because it used
the same URL as `legislation_processes#proposals`.
In commit 702bfec24 we removed the view, but we forgot to remove the
controller action, the route, and some partials which were rendered from
the index view.
Currently the translation:
"Notify me by email when someone comments on my proposals or debates"
It only refers to proposals and debates, but actually it also refers to budget
investments, topics and polls.
We add new method set_user_locale to render the page
with the user's preferred locale.
Note that we add a condition 'if params[:locale].blank?'
to recover the user's preferred locale. This is necessary
because it may be the case that the user does not have an
associated locale, and when execute '@user.locale' when
this value is 'nil', by default returns the default locale.
As we do not want this to happen and we want the locale we
receive as parameter to prevail in this case.
