We only want to render the account link and login items in the header.
And we want only render the Multitenancy and Administrators sections in
the admin sidebar.
We include the administrators management so it's possible to give
permissions to other users to manage tenants.
In order to restrict access to other sections by typing the URL or
following a link, we're only enabling the rest of the routes when we
aren't in the multitenancy management mode.
Using a checkbox wasn't very intuitive because checkboxes are
checked/unchecked when clicked on even if there's an error in the
request. Usually, when checkboxes appear on a form, they don't send any
information to the server unless we click a button to send the form.
So we're using a switch instead of a checkbox, like we did to
enable/disable phases in commit 46d8bc4f0.
Note that, since we've got two switches that match the default
`dom_id(record) .toggle-switch` selector, we need to find a way to
differentiate them. We're adding the `form_class` option for that.
Also note that we're now using a separate action and removing the
JavaScript in the `update` action which assumed that AJAX requests to
this action were always related to updating the `visible_to_valuators`
attribute.
This is consistent to what we usually do. Also, we're applying the same
criteria mentioned in commit 72704d776:
> We're also making these actions idempotent, so sending many requests
> to the same action will get the same result, which wasn't the case
> with the `toggle` action. Although it's a low probability case, the
> `toggle` action could result in [selecting an investment] when trying
> to [deselect] it if someone else has [deselected it] it between the
> time the page loaded and the time the admin clicked on the
> "[Selected]" button.
This is consistent to what we usually do. Also, we're applying the same
criteria mentioned in commit 72704d776:
> We're also making these actions idempotent, so sending many requests
> to the same action will get the same result, which wasn't the case
> with the `toggle` action. Although it's a low probability case, the
> `toggle` action could result in [selecting a proposal] when trying to
> [deselect] it if someone else has [deselected it] it between the time
> the page loaded and the time the admin clicked on the "[Selected]"
> button.
Having a class named `Poll::Question::Answer` and another class named
`Poll::Answer` was so confusing that no developer working on the project
has ever been capable of remembering which is which for more than a few
seconds.
Furthermore, we're planning to add open answers to polls, and we might
add a reference from the `poll_answers` table to the
`poll_question_answers` table to property differentiate between open
answers and closed answers. Having yet another thing named answer would
be more than what our brains can handle (we know it because we did this
once in a prototype).
So we're renaming `Poll::Question::Answer` to `Poll::Question::Option`.
Hopefully that'll make it easier to remember. The name is also (more or
less) consistent with the `Legislation::QuestionOption` class, which is
similar.
We aren't changing the table or columns names for now in order to avoid
possible issues when upgrading (old code running with the new database
tables/columns after running the migrations but before deployment has
finished, for instance). We might do it in the future.
I've tried not to change the internationalization keys either so
existing translations would still be valid. However, since we have to
change the keys in `activerecord.yml` so methods like
`human_attribute_name` keep working, I'm also changing them in places
where similar keys were used (like `poll_question_answer` or
`poll/question/answer`).
Note that it isn't clear whether we should use `option` or
`question_option` in some cases. In order to keep things simple, we're
using `option` where we were using `answer` and `question_option` where
we were using `question_answer`.
Also note we're adding tests for the admin menu component, since at
first I forgot to change the `answers` reference there and all tests
passed.
We're using different controls depending on the number of available
locales.
When there are only a few locales, the solution is obvious: radio
buttons to select the default language, and checkboxes to select the
available ones are simple and intuitive.
With many languages, showing two consecutive lists of 30 languages could
be confusing, though, particularly on small devices, where scrolling
through both lists could be hard.
So, in this case, we're rendering a <select> to choose the default
language. For selecting the available languages, however, we're sticking
to checkboxes because all the other existing options (like multiple
selects) are hard to use. We think it's OK because the form doesn't have
any additional fields, and there's only one big list of options to
scroll through.
While testing the application, we noticed that if we use the
`admin-fieldset-separator` styles when there's only one fieldset, it's
harder to notice that there's an additional field to select the default
language. So we're only using the `admin-fieldset-separator` styles when
all the fields are grouped in fieldsets.
Regarding the help text for the fieldset, if we leave the help text
outside the <legend> tag, people using screen readers won't hear about
this content. However, if we include it inside the <legend> tag, some
screen readers might read it every time they move to a different
checkbox (or radio button), which can be annoying. Since I don't think
these help messages are really essential, I'm leaving them out of the
<legend> tag. It's also easier to style them if they're outside the
<legend> tag.
Note we're using `display: table` for the labels, for the reasons
mentioned in commit 923c2a7ee.
Also note that, when there's only one available locale, this section is
useless. In this case, we aren't disabling it for now because there's a
chance people see it in the official Consul Democracy demo and then
wonder why it isn't available on their installation. We might disable it
in the future, though.
Now that we've moved the logic to generate the events data to a model,
and we've got access to the model in the component rendering the chart,
we can render the data inside the chart instead of doing an extra AJAX
request to get the same data.
Originally, this was problaby done this way so the page wouldn't take
several seconds to load while preparing the data for the chart when
there are thousands of dates being displayed. With an AJAX call, the
page would load as fast as usual, and then the chart would render after
a few seconds. However, we can have an even better performance
improvement in this scenario if we use a Set instead of an Array. The
method `Array#include?`, which we were calling for every date in the
data, is much slower that `Set#merge`. So now both the page and the
chart load as fast as expected.
We could also use something like:
```
def add
(...)
shared_keys.push(*collection.keys)
end
def build
(...)
shared_keys.uniq.each do |k|
(...)
end
def shared_keys
@shared_keys ||= []
end
```
Or other approaches to avoid using `Array#include?`. The performance
would be similar to the one we get when using `Set`. We're using a `Set`
because it makes more obvious that `shared_keys` is supposed to contain
unique elements.
We've had some tests failing in the past due to these AJAX requests
being triggered automatically during the tests and no expectations
checking the requests have finished, so now we're reducing the amount of
flaky tests.
As mentioned in commits 5311daadf and bb958daf0, using links combined
with JavaScript to generate POST (or, in this case, DELETE) requests to
the server has a few issues.
Note we're excluding a few files:
* Configuration files that weren't generated by us
* Migration files that weren't generated by us
* The Gemfile, since it includes an important comment that must be on
the same line as the gem declaration
* The Budget::Stats class, since the heading statistics are a mess and
having shorter lines would require a lot of refactoring
Note we could use `acts_as_paranoid` with the `without_default_scope`
option, but we aren't doing so because it isn't possible to consider
deleted records in uniqueness validations with the paranoia gem [1].
I've added tests for these cases so we don't accidentally add
`acts_as_paranoid` in the future.
Also note we're extracting a `RowComponent` because, when
enabling/disabling a tenant, we're also enabling/disabling the link
pointing to its URL, and so we need to update the URL column after the
AJAX call.
[1] See issues 285 and 319 in https://github.com/rubysherpas/paranoia/
This is consistent with the way we use separate actions to hide and
restore records, which is similar to enabling and disabling a record. We
might do something similar with the `toggle_selection` actions in the
future. For now, we're only doing it with budget phases because we're
going to add a similar switch control to hide and restore tenants.
We're also making these actions idempotent, so sending many requests to
the same action will get the same result, which wasn't the case with the
`toggle` action. Although it's a low probability case, the `toggle`
action could result in disabling a phase when trying to enable it if
someone else has enabled it between the time the page loaded and the
time the admin clicked on the "enable" button.
Note we aren't allowing to delete a tenant because it would delete all
its data, so this action is a very dangerous one. We might need to add a
warning when creating a tenant, indicating the tenant cannot be
destroyed. We can also add an action to delete a tenant which forces the
admin to write the name of the tenant before deleting it and with a big
warning about the danger of this operation.
For now, we're letting administrators of the "main" (default) tenant to
create other tenants. However, we're only allowing to manage tenants
when the multitenancy configuration option is enabled. This way the
interface won't get in the way on single-tenant applications.
We've thought about creating a new role to manage tenants or a new URL
out of the admin area. We aren't doing so for simplicity purposes and
because we want to keep CONSUL working the same way it has for
single-tenant installations, but we might change it in the future.
There's also the fact that by default we create one user with a known
password, and if by default we create a new role and a new user to
handle tenants, the chances of people forgetting to change the password
of one of these users increases dramatically, particularly if they
aren't using multitenancy.
Until now, in order to edit an answer, we had to click on its title on
the table and then on the "Edit answer" link.
That was tedious and different from what we usually do in the admin
section. Furthermore, the code for the answers table was written twice
and when we modified it we forgot to update the one in the `show`
action, meaning the table here provided less information than the
information present in the answers tables.
Co-Authored-By: Javi Martín <javim@elretirao.net>
Before, users needed to navigate to the list of groups in order to
add, edit or delete a group.
Also, they need to navigate to the list of groups first, and then to
the list of headings for that group in order to add, edit or delete a
heading.
Now, it's possible to do all these actions for any group or heading
from the participatory budget view to bring simplicity and to reduce
the number of clicks from a user perspective.
Co-Authored-By: Javi Martín <javim@elretirao.net>
In the past it would have been confusing to add a way to directly
enable/disable a phase in the phases table because it was in the middle
of the form. So we would have had next to each other controls that don't
do anything until the form is sent and controls which modify the
database immediately. That's why we couldn't add the checkboxes we used
when using the wizard.
Now the phases aren't on the same page as the budget form, so we can
edit them independently. We're using a switch, so it's consistent with
the way we enable/disable features. We could have used checkboxes, but
with checkboxes, users expect they aren't changing anything until they
click on a button to send the form, so we'd have to add a button, and it
might be missed since we're going to add "buttons" for headings and
groups to this page which won't send a form but will be links.
Since we're changing the element with JavaScript after an AJAX call, we
need a way to find the button we're changing. The easiest way is adding
an ID attribute to all admin actions buttons/links.
When users created a budget and made a typo, they could use the link to
go back to edit a budget. However, after doing so, they were out of the
budget creation process.
So we're now letting users go back to edit the budget, fix any mistakes
they might have made, and then continue to groups.
So now there's no need to edit each phase individually to enable/disable
them.
We aren't doing the same thing in the form to edit a budget because we
aren't sure about possible usability issues. On one hand, in some tables
we automatically update records when we mark a checkbox, so users might
expect that. On the other hand, having a checkbox in the middle of a
form which updates the database automatically is counter-intuitive,
particularly when right below that table there are other checkboxes
which don't update the database until the form is submitted.
So, either way, chances are users would think they've updated the phases
(or kept them intact) while the opposite would be true.
In the form within the wizard to create a budget that problem isn't that
important because there aren't any other fields in the form and it's
pretty intuitive that what users do will have no effect until they press
the "Finish" button.
Co-Authored-By: Julian Nicolas Herrero <microweb10@gmail.com>
Note we're keeping this section's original design (which had one button
to add a new group which after being pressed was replaced by a button to
cancel) but we aren't using Foundation's `data-toggle` because there
were a couple of usability and accessibility issues.
First, using `data-toggle` multiple times and applying it to multiple
elements led to the "cancel" button not being available after submitting
a form with errors. Fixing it made the code more complicated.
Second, the "Add new group" button always had the `aria-expanded`
attribute set to "true", so my screen reader was announcing the button
as expanded even when it wasn't. I didn't manage to fix it using
`data-toggle`.
Finally, after pressing either the "Add new group" and "Cancel" buttons,
the keyboard focus was lost since the elements disappeared.
So we're simplifying the HTML and adding some custom JavaScript to be
able to handle the focus and manually setting the `aria-expanded`
attribute.
Co-Authored-By: Javi Martín <javim@elretirao.net>
Co-Authored-By: Julian Herrero <microweb10@gmail.com>
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.
So now we'll be able to add them to other sections.
We're also adding a `dependent: :destroy` relation to models having
cards since it doesn't make sense to have cards around when their page
has been destroyed.
We use a different logic to load the card depending on the controller
we're using, and then share the rest of the code. This way we simplify
the code a bit, since we don't have to check for the page_id parameter.
These routes are solved in a different way because of an inconsistency:
we define `groups` and `budget_investments`; we should either use the
`budget_` prefix in all places or remove it everywhere.
We can now share code using `polymorphic_path` even with these models.
In the past, we couldn't use `polymorphic_path` in many places. For
instance, `polymorphic_path(budget, investment)` would return
`budget_budget_investment_path`, while in our routes we had defined
`budget_investment_path`.
With the `resolve` method, introduced in Rails 5.1, we can use symbols
to define we want it to use `investment` instead of `budget_investment`.
It also works with nested resources, so now we can write
`polymorphic_path(investment)`.
This makes the code for `resource_hierarchy_for` almost impossible to
understand. I reached this result after having a look at the internals
of the `resolve` method in order to get its results and then remove the
symbols we include.
Note using this method will not make admin routes compatible with
`polymorphic_path`. Quoting from the Rails documentation:
> This custom behavior only applies to simple polymorphic URLs where a
> single model instance is passed and not more complicated forms, e.g:
> [example showing admin routes won't work]
Also note that now the `admin_polymorphic_path` method will not work for
every model due to inconsistencies in our admin routes. For instance, we
define `groups` and `budget_investments`; we should either use the
`budget_` prefix in all places or remove it everywhere. Right now the
code only works for items with the prefix; it isn't a big deal because
we never call it with an item without the prefix.
Finally, for unknown reasons some routing tests fail if we use
`polymorphic_path`, so we need to redefine that method in those tests
and force the `only_path: true` option.
The new CSV report was more configurable and could work on proposals,
processes and comments. However, it had several issues.
In the public area, by default it generated a blank file.
In the admin section, the report was hard to configure and it generated
a file with less quality than the old system.
So until we improve this system, we're bringing back the old investment
CSV exporter.
This commit reverts most of commit 9d1ca3bf.
Our manual implementation had a few issues. In particular, it didn't
track changes related to associations, which became more of an issue
when we made investments translatable.
Using audited gives us more functionality while at the same time
simplifies our code. However, it adds one more external dependency to
our project.
The reason for choosing audited over paper trail is audited seems to
make it easier to handle associations.
The current tracking section had a few issues:
* When browsing as an admin, this section becomes useless since no
investments are shown
* Browsing investments in the admin section, you're suddenly redirected
to the tracking section, making navigation confusing
* One test related to the officing dashboard failed due to these changes
and had been commented
* Several views and controller methods were copied from other sections,
leading to duplication and making the code harder to maintain
* Tracking routes were defined for proposals and legislation processes,
but in the tracking section only investments were shown
* Probably many more things, since these issues were detected after only
an hour reviewing and testing the code
So we're removing this untested section before releasing version 1.1. We
might add it back afterwards.
We were using two different systems to set translations in JavaScript:
to set the text for languages, we were using data attributes, and to set
the text for staff members, we were using AJAX calls.
I find data attributes keep the code more simple, since there's no need
to define an extra route and controller action. Furthermore, the user
experience is better because response times are faster.
So now both places use data attributes.
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.
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
* Create admin controller and routes
* Add pagination
* Add search by document_number
* Add EN and ES translations
* Add index specs
* Add missing model specs
