We were tracking some events with Ahoy, but in an inconsistent way. For
example, we were tracking when a debate was created, but (probably
accidentally) we were only tracking proposals when they were created
from the management section. For budget investments and their supports,
we weren't using Ahoy events but checking their database tables instead.
And we were only using ahoy events for the charts; for the other stats,
we were using the real data.
While we could actually fix these issues and start tracking events
correctly, existing production data would remain broken because we
didn't track a certain event when it happened. And, besides, why should
we bother, for instance, to track when a debate is created, when we can
instead access that information in the debates table?
There are probably some features related to tracking an event and their
visits, but we weren't using them, and we were storing more user data
than we needed to.
So we're removing the track events, allowing us to simplify the code and
make it more consistent. We aren't removing the `ahoy_events` table in
case existing Consul Democracy installations use it, but we'll remove it
after releasing version 2.2.0 and adding a warning in the release notes.
This change fixes the proposal created chart, since we were only
tracking proposals created in the management section, and opens the
possibility to add more charts in the future using data we didn't track
with Ahoy.
Also note the "Level 2 user Graph" test wasn't testing the graph, so
we're changing it in order to test it. We're also moving it next to the
other graphs test and, since we were tracking the event when we were
confirming the phone, we're renaming to "Level 3 users".
Finally, note that, since we were tracking events when something was
created, we're including the `with_hidden` scope. This is also
consistent with the other stats shown in the admin section as well as
the public stats.
Even if pretty much nobody uses a browser with JavaScript disabled when
navigating our sites, there might be times where JavaScript isn't loaded
for reasons like a slow internet connections not getting the JavaScript
files or a technical issue.
So we're making it possible to still use the like/unlike buttons in
these cases.
As far as possible I think the code is clearer if we use CRUD actions
rather than custom actions. This will make it easier to add the action
to remove votes in the next commit.
Note that we are adding this line as we need to validate it that a vote
can be created on a debate by the current user:
```authorize! :create, Vote.new(voter: current_user, votable: @debate)```
We have done it this way and not with the following code as you might
expect, as this way two votes are created instead of one.
```load_and_authorize_resource through: :debate, through_association: :votes_for```
This line tries to load the resource @debate and through the association
"votes_for" it tries to create a new vote associated to that debate.
Therefore a vote is created when trying to authorise the resource and
then another one in the create action, when calling @debate.vote_by (which
is called by @debate.register_vote).
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
The only view that linked to this action was never used and so it was
deleted in commit 0bacd5baf.
Since now the proposals controller is the only one place rendering the
`shared/map` partial, we're moving it to the proposals views.
We were ignoring the draft version param when loading an annotation,
which could result in a strange situation where we load an annotation
and a draft version different than the one it belongs to.
Thanks to this change, we can simplify the code a little bit. IMHO the
`comments` and `new_comment` routes should have been added on member
instead of on collection, which would further simplify the code. I'm
leaving the routes untouched just in case changing the URL has side
effects on existing installations.
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
```
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.
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.
Rails 5.2 is raising a warning in some places:
DEPRECATION WARNING: Dangerous query method (method whose arguments are
used as raw SQL) called with non-attribute argument(s). Non-attribute
arguments will be disallowed in Rails 6.0. This method should not be
called with user-provided values, such as request parameters or model
attributes. Known-safe values can be passed by wrapping them in
Arel.sql().
IMHO this warning is simply wrong, since we're using known PostgreSQL
functions like LOWER() or RANDOM(). AFAIK this code works without warnings
in Rails 6.0 [1][2]
However, since the warning is annoying, we need to take measures so our
logs are clean.
[1] https://github.com/rails/rails/commit/6c82b6c99d
[2] https://github.com/rails/rails/commit/64d8c54e16
It was removed in commit 128a8164 because we hadn't reviewed it nor
tested it properly. We're now adding it again, fixing the issues we've
found while reviewing.
This filter was added in commit 4285ba4b, it was changed in commit
002d8688, and most of the code from the original commit has disappeared
without a trace (maybe due to a merge conflict?).
This filter could actually be useful if we started using it when users
click on a tag. Since we don't, I'm removing it. We might add it back if
we decide to actually use it.
This feature wasn't properly tested nor reviewed, and after reviewing
several pull requests with a similar status and considering this pull
request is related to the public area of the web, we've decided to
remove it before releasing version 1.1.
This commit reverts commit 4f50e67a.
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.
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
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.
Using arrays made it difficult to order by more than one field (like the
`most_voted` scope does), and so we were ordering by `confidence_score`
and ignoring the `created_at` column.
Using an AR relation makes it easy to reuse the existing `most_voted`
scope.
This change has one side effect: now comments with equal votes are
ordered in descending order instead of having no specific order. That
means flaky specs which failed sometimes because they assumed comments
were ordered by date are now always green.
I've also re-added the `oldest` scope removed in 792b15b thinking it was
removed because using it with arrays was too hard.
Using `setseed` and ordering by `RAND()` doesn't always return the same
results because, although the generated random numbers will always be
the same, PostgreSQL doesn't guarantee the order of the rows it will
apply those random numbers to, similar to the way it doesn't guarantee
an order when the `ORDER BY` clause isn't specified.
Using something like `reorder("legislation_proposals.id % #{seed}")`,
like we do in budget investments, is certainly more elegant but it makes
the test checking two users get different results fail sometimes, so
that approach might need some adjustments in order to make the results
more random.
