We removed the link to this page in commit 83e8d6035 because poll
questions don't really make sense without a poll.
However, this page also contained information about successful
proposals, which might be interesting so administrators don't have to
navigate to the public area in order to find and create questions based
on successful proposals.
So we're keeping the part about successful proposals and linking it from
the proposals part of the admin area.
Note we're using translation keys like `successful_proposals_tab`, which
don't make sense anymore, for the successful proposals. We're doing so
because we've already got translations for these keys and, if we renamed
them, we'd lose the existing translations and our translators would have
to add them again.
Also note we're changing one poll question test a little bit so we
create the question from a successful proposal using the new page. There
are other tests checking how to create a question from the
admin/proposals#show action and other tests checking what happens when
accessing a successful proposal in the admin section, so we don't lose
any test coverage by changing an existing test instead of adding a new
one.
Finally, note that we've removing the `search` method in poll question
because we no longer use it. This currently makes the
`author_visible_name` database column useless; we aren't removing it
right now because we don't want to risk a possible data loss in a patch
release (we're about to release version 2.3.1), but we might remove it
in the future.
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.
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 that the AJAX response stopped working after replacing the link
with a button. Not sure about the reason, but, since this is one of the
very few places where we use AJAX calls to delete content, the easiest
solution is to stop using AJAX and be consistent with what we do in the
rest of the admin section.
Since IRB has improved its support for multiline, the main argument
towars using a trailing dot no longer affects most people.
It still affects me, though, since I use Pry :), but I agree
leading dots are more readable, so I'm enabling the rule anyway.
We were rendering the `new` action, but that action doesn't exist.
Before commit ec861ca8e, we were rendering the `edit` action of an
answer, which was confusing as well.
Note that, when adding an invalid document, `@answer.documents` contains
that invalid document (which is not present in the database). Since
we're rendering the index, this new document would appear in the list of
the documents that can be deleted; to avoid that, we're kind of
"reloading" the answer object in the component by finding the record in
the database. We aren't using `@answer.reload` because doing so would
remove the validation errors.
Note that the `create` action doesn't create an image but updates an
answer instead. We're removing the references to `:create` in the
abilities since it isn't used.
In the future we might change the form to add an image to an answer
because it's been broken for ages since it shows all the attached
images.
Adding, modifiying, and/or deleting questions for an already started
poll is far away from being democratic and can lead to unwanted side
effects like missing votes in the results or stats.
So, from now on, only modifiying questions will be possible only if
the poll has not started yet.
In this form, the only case where `poll` might be present without
`question.poll` being present to is going to be the `new` action. We can
assign the poll in the `new` action and get rid of the `poll` variable
in the form.
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>
After removing a question from a poll it makes more sense to redirect to
your own poll show page in order to manage their questions.
Currently it is redirecting to the questions index page where all the
questions from all the polls are displayed and takes you completely out
of the context of the poll you are in.
In the future we will remove this index question page.
Actions :search_booths and :search_officers in admin polls controller
are moved to other controllers since commit 20e31133a for
:search_booths and commit 19ec7f93b for :search_officers.
This then allows us to remove the code that references these actions in
the controller and in the administrator abilities.
When customizing CONSUL, one of the most common actions is adding a new
field to a form.
This requires modifying the permitted/allowed parameters. However, in
most cases, the method returning these parameters returned an instance
of `ActionController::Parameters`, so adding more parameters to it
wasn't easy.
So customizing the code required copying the method returning those
parameters and adding the new ones. For example:
```
def something_params
params.require(:something).permit(
:one_consul_attribute,
:another_consul_attribute,
:my_custom_attribute
)
end
```
This meant that, if the `something_params` method changed in CONSUL, the
customization of this method had to be updated as well.
So we're extracting the logic returning the parameters to a method which
returns an array. Now this code can be customized without copying the
original method:
```
alias_method :consul_allowed_params, :allowed_params
def allowed_params
consul_allowed_params + [:my_custom_attribute]
end
```
We're not adding the rule because it would apply the current line length
rule of 110 characters per line. We still haven't decided whether we'll
keep that rule or make lines shorter so they're easier to read,
particularly when vertically splitting the editor window.
So, for now, I'm applying the rule to lines which are about 90
characters long.
There are some sections where we are not reusing it:
* The budget investments search is completely different, so this
component isn't appropriate there
* Booth assignment and officers are slightly different, and I'm not
entirely sure it's safe to refactor these cases
We can find the booth through the booth assignment, so we don't need to
pass it in the URL.
Since the parameter is in the URL and not sent through a form, we can
also use `params[:poll_id]` directly, and so we can reuse the
`load_poll` method.
Using `render :nothing` was deprecated, but we never noticed it because
we didn't have a test for the action using it. In Rails 5.1, it raises
an exception.
Using `head :ok` and adding a test for this scenario solves the issue.
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
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.
