This method was added in Rails 7.0 and makes the code slihgtly more
readable.
The downside is that it generates two queries instead of one, so it
might generate some confusion when debugging SQL queries. Its impact on
performance is probably negligible.
Until now, we've stored the text of the answer somebody replied to. The
idea was to handle the scenarios where the user voters for an option but
then that option is deleted and restored, or the texts of the options
are accidentally edited and so the option "Yes" is now "Now" and vice
versa.
However, since commit 3a6e99cb8, options can no longer be edited once
the poll starts, so there's no risk of the option changing once somebody
has voted.
This means we can now store the ID of the option that has been voted.
That'll also help us deal with a bug introduced int 673ec075e, since
answers in different locales are not counted as the same answer. Note we
aren't dealing with this bug right now.
We're still keeping (and storing) the answer as well. There are two
reasons for that.
First, we might add an "open answer" type of questions in the future and
use this column for it.
Second, we've still got logic depending on the answer, and we need to be
careful when changing it because there are existing installations where
the answer is present but the option_id is not.
Note that we're using `dependent: nullify`. The reasoning is that, since
we're storing both the option_id and the answer text, we can still use
the answer text when removing the option. In practice, this won't matter
much, though, since we've got a validation rule that makes it impossible
to destroy options once the poll has started.
Also note we're still allowing duplicate records when the option is nil.
We need to do that until we've removed every duplicate record in the
database.
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 were using the same code, and the same regular expressions, in two
places. To do so, we were including a helper inside a model, which is
something we don't usually do.
So now we know where to use the `where.missing` method which was
introduced in Rails 6.1.
Note this rule didn't detect all cases where the new method can be used.
We weren't showing the details of answers without a description, even if
they had images, videos or documents. Some users found that behavior
unexpected since the description isn't a mandatory field and so they
left it blank, but they added images to that answer and they didn't
appear on the poll page.
Note we had a condition not to show the title of an answer when it had
no description. I think that condition was redundant because answers
without a description weren't loaded in the first place. Anyway, that
condition doesn't make sense anymore because we're displaying answers
with images but no description.
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.
I had mixed feelings about this rule, since I like spaces where
possible.
However, I changed my mind when I realized writing `->(thing) { }` was
similar to defining a method, and we don't have a space before the
parenthesis when defining a method.
This method is ambiguous. Sometimes we use it to set invalid data in
tests (which can usually be done with `update_column`), and other times
we use it instead of `update!`.
I'm removing it because, even if sometimes it could make sense to use
it, it's too similar to `update_attributes` (which is an alias for
`update` and runs validations), making it confusing.
However, there's one case where we're still using it: in the
ActsAsParanoidAliases module, we need to invoke the callbacks, which
`update_column` skips, but tests related to translations fail if we use
`update!`. The reason for this is the tests check what happens if we
restore a record without restoring its translations. But that will make
the record invalid, since there's a validation rule checking it has at
least one translation.
I'm not blacklisting any other method which skips validations because we
know they skip validations and use them anyway (hopefully with care).
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.
Sanitizing descriptions before saving a record has a few drawbacks:
1. It makes the application rely on data being safe in the database. If
somehow dangerous data enters the database, the application will be
vulnerable to XSS attacks
2. It makes the code complicated
3. It isn't backwards compatible; if we decide to disallow a certain
HTML tag in the future, we'd need to sanitize existing data.
On the other hand, sanitizing the data in the view means we don't need
to triple-check dangerous HTML has already been stripped when we see the
method `auto_link_already_sanitized_html`, since now every time we use
it we sanitize the text in the same line we call this method.
We could also sanitize the data twice, both when saving to the database
and when displaying values in the view. However, doing so wouldn't make
the application safer, since we sanitize text introduced through
textarea fields but we don't sanitize text introduced through input
fields.
Finally, we could also overwrite the `description` method so it
sanitizes the text. But we're already introducing Globalize which
overwrites that method, and overwriting it again is a bit too confusing
in my humble opinion. It can also lead to hard-to-debug behaviour.
This way we guarantee there will be at least one translation for a model
and we keep compatibility with the rest of the application, which
ideally isn't aware of globalize.
We needed to bring back support for CKEditor in our translatable form,
which we had temporarily remove.
And now we support CKEditor in our translatable specs, and so we can
remove the duplicated specs for poll question answers.
