Since the PR "Do not use third-party cookies in embedded videos #5548", the logic from
"embed_videos_helper" was extracted to the "embedded_video_component" and the
"videoable" model concern.
However, during this refactor, the "regex" method, which uses record.class:: to handle
video embeds, was left inaccessible for Legislation Proposals.
This commit fixes the issue by including the concern in the Legislation Proposal model.
The `validates_comparison_of` method was added in Rails 7.0.
We aren't changing the `date_range` validation in polls yet because it's
a bit complex; we'll do it in the next commit.
These cases aren't covered by the `Rails/WhereRange` rubocop rule, but
IMHO using ranges makes them more consistent. Besides, they generate SQL
which is more consistent with what Rails usually generates. For example,
`Poll.where("starts_at <= :time and ends_at >= :time", time:
Time.current)` generates:
```
SELECT \"polls\".\"id\", (...) WHERE \"polls\".\"hidden_at\" IS NULL AND
(starts_at <= '2024-07-(...)' and ends_at >= '2024-07-(...)')
```
And `Poll.where(starts_at: ..Time.current, ends_at: Time.current..)`
generates:
```
SELECT \"polls\".\"id\", (...) WHERE \"polls\".\"hidden_at\" IS NULL AND
\"polls\".\"starts_at\" <= '2024-07-(...)' AND \"polls\".\"ends_at\" >=
'2024-07-(...)'"
```
Note that the `not_archived` scope in proposals slightly changes, since
we were using `>` and now we use the equivalent of `>=`. However, since
the `created_at` field is a time, this will only mean that a proposal
will be archived about one microsecond later.
For consistency, we're also changing the `archived` scope, so a proposal
is never archived and not archived at the same time (not even for a
microsecond).
This rule was added in rubocop-rails 2.25.0. Applying it allows us to
simplify the code a little bit. For example, now there's no need to
specify the `proposals` table in proposal scopes, which was actually
causing a bug in the `Legislation::Proposal` model, which was using the
`proposals` table instead of the `legislation_proposals` table (but,
since we don't use this scope, it didn't affect the application).
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
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.
We were using two different sets of extensions but, since the markdown
code is always written by administrators, IMHO it makes sense to be
consistent and always render markdown code the same way.
* Add Tables option to Redcarpet in Legislation draft
* Allow table tags in Admin Legislation Sanitizer
* Add Test to render markdown tables in Legislation drafts
* Add Test for Admin Legislation Sanitizer
We include test for image, table and h1 to h6 tags and additional tests to strengthen the allowed and disallowed parameters
* Add Table from markdown test in System and Factories
* Add test to render tables for admin user
* Remove comment line about Redcarpet options
* Edit custom css for legislation draft table to make it responsive
When configuring phases in a process, we were validating the start date
or the end date is present, the other date is present too.
However, in other parts of the application we were checking whether a
phase is enabled and then assumed its dates were present if the phase
was enabled. However, we weren't validating this behavior, so it was
possible to enable a phase and leaving its dates blank, causing the
application to crash.
So, as suggested by Alberto, we're changing the validation rule so
phase dates are mandatory when a phase is enabled.
With this rule, the old validation rules are not necessary. I've
considered leaving them in order to avoid database inconsistencies.
However, I realized records having a disabled phase with its start and
end dates have always been valid. This means applications checking for
the presence of these dates instead of checking whether the phase is
enabled have never worked properly.
We don't have to change the logic anywhere else because as mentioned we
were already checking phases are enabled before using their dates.
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.
Legislation Processes created through the admin form were getting the default color.
However, Legislation processes created by other means (like the `db:dev_seed` rake task) were not getting these default values.
This feature was originally implemented when we were using Rails 4.
With Rails 5, we can provide default values to all new Legislation processes
and simplify the code at the same time thanks to its `attribute` method.
Related commit:
https://github.com/consul/consul/pull/4080/commits/0b83be6
When a legislation process is deleted, everything related will be
deleted, including the answers. This `dependent: :destroy` was causing
that users accounts were being accidentally deleted.
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.
Not doing so has a few gotchas when working with relations, particularly
with records which are not stored in the database.
I'm excluding the related content file because it's got a very peculiar
relationship with itself: the `has_one :opposite_related_content` has no
inverse; the relation itself is its inverse. It's a false positive since
the inverse condition is true:
```
content.opposite_related_content.opposite_related_content.object_id ==
content.object_id
```
Usually when we specify a `belongs_to` relations, we also specify its
equivalent `has_many`. That allows us to write, for example:
`topic.user.topics`.
Just like we do in the Budget module, and in some places in the Poll and
Legislation modules, we don't need to specify the class name when the
name of the relation matches the name of a class in the same module.
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
In Ruby, the Kernel class defined the `open` method, which is available
for (almost) every object. So creating a scope with the name `open`
generates a warning indicating we are overwriting the existing `open`
method.
While this warning is pretty much harmless and we could ignore it, it
generates a lot of noise in the logs. So I'm "undefining" the method
before generating the scope, so we don't get the warning all the time.
We were converting markdown to HTML every time we saved a record, which
has the same problems as sanitizing HTML before saving it to the
database, particularly because the body of a legislation draft is stored
in a translations table.
Performance-wise this isn't a problem: converting a text with more than
200_000 characters takes about a milisecond on my machine.
Note we need to modify a migration generated by globalize, since the
method `create_translation_table!` would fail now that we don't define
`translates :body_html` in the model.
Some of our team members don't like using `do...end` for scopes, and
some other team members don't like using `{ ... }` for multi-line
blocks, so we've agreed to use class methods instead.
