For the HashAlignment rule, we're using the default `key` style (keys
are aligned and values aren't) instead of the `table` style (both keys
and values are aligned) because, even if we used both in the
application, we used the `key` style a lot more. Furthermore, the
`table` style looks strange in places where there are both very long and
very short keys and sometimes we weren't even consistent with the
`table` style, aligning some keys without aligning other keys.
Ideally we could align hashes to "either key or table", so developers
can decide whether keeping the symmetry of the code is worth it in a
case-per-case basis, but Rubocop doesn't allow this option.
Add a help text on admin budget show page and improve text from Admin::Budgets::HelpComponent in order to
clarify its functionality when we are using the wizard.
Avoid displaying the price in admin budget headings section
and avoid fill the field 'price' in admin budget headings form
when the budget has been checked with hide_money field.
Both the calculate winners and delete actions benefit from some kind of
hint.
The "calculate winners" hint informs administrators that results won't
be publicly available unless the "show results" option is enabled.
The delete action was redirecting with an error message when the budget
couldn't be deleted; IMHO it's better to disable it and inform
administrators why it's disabled. Alternatively we could remove the
button completely; however, users might be looking for a way to delete a
budget and wouldn't find any hint about it.
We're now removing the "Delete" action from the budgets index table,
since most of the time it isn't possible to delete a budget and so the
action takes up space and we get little gain in return. We could keep
the "Delete" icon just for budgets which can be deleted; however, the
alignment of the table rows would suffer, making it harder to find the
intended action.
We currently don't have any links in the public area pointing to past
budgets, so having links in the admin section to both the budget and its
results seemed a bit redundant. We're going to add more links to the
budget actions soon, so we need to make room for them; otherwise we'll
have too many.
We're also changing the "Preview" text for a published budget. Since the
budget is already public, we aren't previewing it anymore but simply
viewing it.
And, to be consistent with the "See results" link, we're opening the
"Preview" link in the current tab. Opening links in a new tab is
generally a bad idea because takes control away from users, breaks the
back button and makes navigation particularly hard on mobile browsers.
It could be argued that in this case it's useful when users are editing
the budget in one tab and previewing it in another one, so we might add
this behavior back as long as we make it clear that the link opens in a
new tab [1].
[1] https://www.nngroup.com/articles/new-browser-windows-and-tabs/
Calculating winners before the balloting is over is useless (results
aren't published at that point) and can lead to the wrong results since
users are still voting and results might change.
And we were showing the button to calculate winners even when a budget
had finished. However, in this case the action to calculate winners did
nothing, which resulted in administrators seeing nothing happened after
pressing the button.
Having links in the middle of a form distracts users from the task of
filling in the form, and following a link before submitting the form
will mean whatever has been filled in is lost.
And the budgets form is already very long and hard to fill in. Having
the phases table in the middle of it made it even harder. And, since
we're planning to add the option to manage groups and headings from the
same page, it's better to have a dedicated page for the form.
Links acting like buttons have a few disadvantages.
First, screen readers will announce them as "links". Screen reader users
usually associate links with "things that get you somewhere" and buttons
with "things that perform an action". So when something like "Delete,
link" is announced, they'll probably think this is a link which will
take them to another page where they can delete a record.
Furthermore, the URL of the link for the "destroy" action might be the
same as the URL for the "show" action (only one is accessed with a
DELETE request and the other one with a GET request). That means screen
readers could announce the link like "Delete, visited link", which is
very confusing.
They also won't work when opening links in a new tab, since opening
links in a new tab always results in a GET request to the URL the link
points to.
Finally, submit buttons work without JavaScript enabled, so they'll work
even if the JavaScript in the page hasn't loaded (for whatever reason).
For all these reasons (and probably many more), using a button to send
forms is IMHO superior to using links.
There's one disadvantage, though. Using `button_to` we create a <form>
tag, which means we'll generate invalid HTML if the table is inside
another form. If we run into this issue, we need to use `button_tag`
with a `form` attribute and then generate a form somewhere else inside
the HTML (with `content_for`).
Note we're using `button_to` with a block so it generates a <button>
tag. Using it in a different way the text would result in an <input />
tag, and input elements can't have pseudocontent added via CSS.
The following code could be a starting point to use the `button_tag`
with a `form` attribute. One advantage of this approach is screen
readers wouldn't announce "leaving form" while navigating through these
buttons. However, it doesn't work in Internet Explorer.
```
ERB:
<% content_for(:hidden_content, form_tag(path, form_options) {}) %>
<%= button_tag text, button_options %>
Ruby:
def form_id
path.gsub("/", "_")
end
def form_options
{ id: form_id, method: options[:method] }
end
def button_options
html_options.except(:method).merge(form: form_id)
end
Layout:
<%= content_for :hidden_content %> # Right before the `</body>`
```
The message "Are you sure?" is usually followed by blindly clicking
"Yes" without really thinking about what one is doing. So we're
including a bit more information about what's about to happen. That way
it's more likely users will notice it when they accidentally click the
wrong button.
Ideally we would offer the option to undo every common action and then
we wouldn't have to ask for confirmation. But since that isn't the case,
for now we're adding a better confirmation message.
Note we're removing the `resource_name` parameter from the translation
to confirm the action of deleting a record. The reason is, in many
languages it only makes sense to add the model name when it's got an
associated article, and, unlike in English (where "the" is used for
every word), that article is different depending on the noun it's
related to. So we'd have to provide a translation like "name with
article, when singular" for every model.
The complexity of these translations could scalate quickly. And, given
the context, IMHO it isn't essential to add the resouce name. When we're
in the proposals index and there's a proposal named "Improve XYZ", and
we click on "Delete" and see a message saying "This action will delete
XYZ", it is implied that XYZ is a proposal.
So instead we're changing the message so it works for every record with
no need of noun-dependent articles.
The word "budget" in the "Preview budget" link is redundant.
On the other hand, the words "Manage", Edit" and "Admin" are not
really necessary in my humble opinion. Just like in the admin
navigation menu we use "Participatory budgets" instead of "Manage
Participatory budgets", the fact that we're going to manage or
admin or edit something can be deduced from the fact that we're in
the admin section.
Besides, it isn't clear to me why we use "Manage" for projects,
"Edit" for heading groups and "Admin" for ballots. The differences
between these three concepts might be too subtle for me.
The previous paragraphs haven't been corroborated with real users,
though, so I might be mistaken and we might need to revisit these
links in the future.
These actions still take quite a lot of space. Maybe in the future we
could remove the "delete" icon, at least on budgets which cannot be
deleted.
When we see a list of, let's say, banners, and each one has a link to
edit them, the word "banner" in the text "edit banner" is redundant and
adds noise; even for users with cognitive disabilities, it's obvious
that the "edit" link refers to the banner.
- Allow to define a link (text and url) on budget form for render on the budget
header.
- Improve styles
Co-authored-by: Senén Rodero Rodríguez <senenrodero@gmail.com>
We don't allow deleting a budget with associated investments. However,
we allow deleting a budget with associated administrators and valuators.
This results in a foreign key violation error:
PG::ForeignKeyViolation: ERROR: update or delete on table "budgets"
violates foreign key constraint "fk_rails_c847a52b1d" on table
"budget_administrators"
Using the `dependent: :destroy` option when defining the relationship,
we remove the association records when removing the budget.
As a bonus, we reduce the number of Rubocop offenses regarding the
`Rails/HasManyOrHasOneDependent` rule. Only 72 to go! :)
Before commit 28caabecd, it was clear which budgets were in draft mode
because their phase was "drafting".
Now the phase isn't "drafting" anymore, so we have to make it clear
somehow that the budget is a draft.
I'm using styles similar to the ones we added in commit 2f636eaf7 for
completed budgets but at the same time making them slightly different so
it's easy to differenciate completed and drafting budgets.
Particularly the line with `within "tr", text: "Finished budget" do` is
now easier to read.
This way we avoid a potential pitfall. Imagine that the factory which
creates a finished budget generated a budget with the name "COMPLETED
Budget 1". Then the test:
```
within "#budget_#{finished_budget.id}" do
expect(page).to have_content("COMPLETED")
end
```
Would pass even if we didn't add the text "COMPLETED" anywhere else,
because it would be included in the name of the budget.
System tests are about user experience, so instead of checking the slug
has been updated in the database, we check whether the page can be
accessed using the slug.
Note the budget group test is a bit different because the name of the
group isn't present in the budget group page.
JavaScript is used by about 98% of web users, so by testing without it
enabled, we're only testing that the application works for a very
reduced number of users.
We proceeded this way in the past because CONSUL started using Rails 4.2
and truncating the database between JavaScript tests with database
cleaner, which made these tests terribly slow.
When we upgraded to Rails 5.1 and introduced system tests, we started
using database transactions in JavaScript tests, making these tests much
faster. So now we can use JavaScript tests everywhere without critically
slowing down our test suite.
Content like lowercase letters with `text-transform: uppercase` or
spaces after elements with `display: block` or "You're on page:" are not
seen that way by users with a browser supporting CSS.
So we're testing what most users actually experience.
System tests are used to test the application from the user's point of
view. To test for specific exceptions, particularly regarding
authorization permissions, controller tests fit better.
Another option would be to test the page displayed shows a certain text,
like "Internal server error". I'm choosing controller tests because
they're faster and we're basically testing the same scenario many times
and we've already got a test checking what happens when users access a
page raising an exception.
Since we were using an icon font with no text, screen readers were
announcing things like "Enabled, L", trying to read the icon generated
with CSS.
Using text and replacing it with CSS with an icon solves the problem.
We could also use aria-label, but I prefer using "Yes/No" so the text
can be shown/hidden with CSS. Also useful when using
`save_and_open_page` during tests, since the displayed page will not
have any CSS rules applied.
Out of several existing techniques to hide text [1], we're setting the
font size to 1px in combination with moving the content off-screen
because that way we can override it in the `::before` element.
Just moving the content off-screen has the inconvenient of the content
still being taken into account when calculating the text indentation.
And just using a 1px font would make a 1px-sized square appear when
selecting text, which could confuse users.
[1] https://webaim.org/techniques/css/invisiblecontent/
This makes the table easier to identify when writing tests and using
screen readers.
Since we do not render any other table captions anywhere else, we're
making the caption invisible so only screen reader users will be
affected by this change.
Even if the test checked all possibilities, it was hard to understand.
Using `have_table with_cols:` to test the order of the rows and testing
one phase is enabled and has a link to edit it es enough IMHO.
Previously the draft mode was a phase of the PB, but that had some
limitations.
Now the phase drafting disappears and therefore the PB can have the
status published or not published (in draft mode).
That will give more flexibility in order to navigate through the
different phases and see how it looks for administrators before
publishing the PB and everybody can see.
By default, the PB is always created in draft mode, so it gives you
the flexibility to adjust and modify anything before publishing it.
We were repeating the same code over and over (with a few variants) to
setup tests which require an administrator. We can use a tag and
simplify the code.
