I don't think this feature it was ever used. It was introduced in commit
49dec6061 as part of a feature that was removed in commits 1cd47da9d and
c45a0bd8ac.
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.
This column isn't used since commit 4c0deb0ec because administrators can
associate videos to the answers since commit 5862eea51. The value of
this attribute isn't used in the public area since commit 8277e3cc2.
This parameter isn't used since commit b4a6f664b.
Note we're changing the tests to use proposals instead of debates
because proposals may have images attached, while debates may not.
This way we're also checking mistakes like closing tags that don't match
their opening element, which we detected by manually running HTML
Beautifier with the `-e` option, and fixed two commits ago.
Note there was a false positive in the mailer layout. We don't know the
cause. Maybe closing the ERB tag right before the HTML opening tag and
the lack of other attributes on the tag made HTML Beautifier think the
tag wasn't correctly open, but on the other hand, we have the exact same
line in other layouts where HTML Beautifier works fine. We're fixing it
by adding an HTML id attribute to the element.
We had inconsistent indentation in many places. Now we're fixing them
and adding a linter to our CI so we don't accidentally introduce
inconsistent indentations again.
In some places, we accidentally opened the same tag twice instead of
closing it, while in some other places we closed a tag without opening
it in the first place.
We've detected these issues thanks to the HTML Beautifier gem, which
we're about to start using for indentation purposes.
Using an `if..else` block made the code harder to follow since the
opening tag was inside the block but the closing tag was outside it.
Moreover, it didn't work well with HTML Beautifier (a gem we're going to
introduce to manage ERB indentations).
This way we simplify the HTML, which had some `if...else` blocks that
were hard to follow because there were opening tags inside these blocks
while the closing tags were outside these blocks.
We're also making the CSS container-dependent instead of
window-dependent. Since there are between one and three elements inside
the panel, we accomplish this by making the element with the content
take its own line if the width of the panel is smaller than 35rem.
Note we're trying to keep the layout similar to what it was; since we're
no longer using negative margins (like the ones in the `.row` selector),
the votes element now gets a width of 22.5% instead of 25%.
Also note we're using the column-gap property for flexbox because the
`flex-with-gap` mixin doesn't work so well with elements that have
borders. Since the column-gap property for flexbox is now supperted by
more than 98% of the browsers (which wasn't the case when we started
using the `flex-with-gap` mixin), the `flex-with-gap` mixin has become
obsolete.
Finally, note we're removing the `max-width: 12rem` rule in the images.
I'm not sure why we introduced this rule in the first place, and it
didn't play so well to the new layout. I considered using code like
`max-width: min(100%, 12rem)`, but, since I'm not sure why `12rem` was
there in the first place, I'm not sure whether this approach was better,
and it sure made things more complex.
Not doing so made it trickier to define a flex layout, since the
icon-successful element is given a `position: absolute`, but only for
successful proposals, while for unsuccessful proposals it was taking
the standard `position: static` value.
We're also reusing the `successful?` method instead of rewriting it in
the view, and fixing a small issue where the icon wasn't displayed for
proposals having the exact needed votes (we were using `>` instead of
`>=` in the condition).
Note that legislation proposals use the method
`Proposal.votes_needed_for_success`, which is probaby a mistake caused
by copying the code from the proposal view. Fixing this issue is out of
the scope of this commit (and pull request), though.
With the multiline condition, HTML Beautifier (which we're about to
introduce in order to manage ERB indentation) gets confused. In this
context, a one-line condition is also more readable.
We had some duplication because the `css_for_process_header` was using
an instance variable, and so it couldn't be called from a partial where
this instance variable wasn't available.
Using a local variable and passing it as a parameter (as we should
always do) solves the issue and lets us simplify the code.
Allow enabling from settings admin section.
Note that we set the z-index to 20 in order to will be greater than
the others z-index elements in the application like <header> on
mobile devices.
With this change, on my browser, reloading a page in development after
changing a CSS file is about 25% faster than simply splitting the CSS
code between `application.css` and `vendored.css`. Compared to using
only one `application.css` file containing everything, reloading a page
in development is about 35% faster.
The combined size of all the generated stylesheets is now about 0.5%
bigger. Not sure why (maybe placeholder selectors?), but the difference
is negligible.
Note that we could load the `administration.css` file only in the admin
area, reducing the size of the page for people accessing the public
area. However, the size of this stylesheet (compressed) is 28K, which is
less than 3% of the overall size of a page and, on the other hand,
there's a risk of some styles no longer being applied because we might
have overlooked the fact that some styles in the `administration.css`
are also applied to the public area.
So, for now, we're still loading the administration styles in the public
area. We might reconsider in the future.
With this change, on my browser, reloading a page in development after
changing a CSS file is about 10%-15% faster.
On the minus side, this change results in an extra request when browsing
the page; AFAIK it isn't that big of a deal, even when the server isn't
using HTTP/2.
We're using the `aria-label` attribute instead of a label because this
is a page where only one field is rendered and the text of the label is
the same as the text of the <h1> tag.
We're using `aria-label` instead of `aria-labelledby` because the former
is supported by Capybara.
In order for this attribute to be applied, due to the syntax of the
`select` method, it should be in a separate hash.
We're removing it instead of correctly applying it because we never use
the `tabindex` attribute with a positive value, since it might break
keyboard navigation.
We reduce code duplication thanks to that, and make it easier
to change this field.
Note that there was one place where the "16.years" value was
hardcoded. We're moving the test for this case to the
component and changing it so the test doesn't use the default
age.
We're also removing the redundant helper method that had the
same code as a method in the User class which is called
everywhere else.
Since the main stats index loads this JavaScript using
`"data-turbolinks-track" => "reload"`, going from the stats index to a
section that doesn't include this JavaScript did the strange effect
Turbolinks does in these situations: it first loaded the page using an
AJAX request and, after getting the contents of the page, it reloaded it
in order to apply the changes in the included JavaScript.
This behavior was a bit confusing, particularly when browsing to a
section of the admin stats, clicking the browser's back button to go
back to the stats index, the going to another section, ...
One of the admin stats tests was failing sometimes with this message:
```
1) Stats Budget investments Supporting phase Number of users and
supports in investment projects
Failure/Error: raise ex, cause: cause
Selenium::WebDriver::Error::UnknownError:
unknown error: unhandled inspector error:
{"code":-32000,"message":"Node with given id does not belong to the document"}
(Session info: chrome=129.0.6668.89)
```
This was probably caused by the mentioned Turbolinks behavior that loads
the page twice. It's possible that Selenium was somehow checking the
node related to the first request when the second request had finished.
Avoiding that double request solves the issue.
This way it'll be easier for people using screen readers to know which
element the checkbox is related to.
Note that we're using the `aria-label` attribute because it makes
testing with Capybara easier than using the `aria-labelledby` attribute.
The only exception are the comments, since comments don't have a title
and there isn't a proper label for them. In this case, we're using the
title of the associated commentable as the label; we might change it in
the future since there might be many comments for the same commentable.
As mentioned in commit 5311daadf, there are several reasons to use
buttons in these situations. And, as mentioned in the previous commits,
using buttons instead of links for actions requiring confirmation will
help us test for accessibility issues.
As mentioned in commit 5311daadf, there are several reasons to use
buttons in these situations. And, as mentioned in the previous commits,
using buttons instead of links for actions requiring confirmation will
help us test for accessibility issues.
As mentioned in commit 5311daadf, there are several reasons to use
buttons in these situations. And, as mentioned in the previous commits,
using buttons instead of links for actions requiring confirmation will
help us test for accessibility issues.
Since we're adding styles for this button, we're also adding the
`font-size` property instead of using the `small` class. We'll deal with
the `float-right` property in the next commit.
