We can use the current path as URL instead of passing it every time.
Passing the `page: 1` parameter is also redundant since by default the
index goes to the first page and the search form does not send any page
parameter.
We're using the translation fallbacks for the icons, just like we do for
texts.
Note we use the `render?` method provided by view_component to make sure
the component will not be rendered when certain features are disabled.
Also note the `find_asset` method works differently in development and
production, and so we use different approaches here.
We forgot to make this change when we started using "resolve" to
generate polymorphic nested resources.
The taggables_path method can be replaced with the polymorphic_path of a
class. It even works with nested resources, given the current page
already has the nested resources params (in this case, `budget_id` for
investments).
We were jumping from h1 to h3 and some of these sections (cards and
processes) had h3 tags inside them.
My best guess is we were using h3 so the titles were smaller. So I'm
adding a CSS mixin to easily use a font size of a different heading tag.
They were all following the same format.
Note we need to group the `see_all` translation keys together (the same
way it's done with the `most_active` keys) so we don't have an unused
translation warning.
We're also moving the "see all" link in processes outside the feed
content; the same way it's done in debates and proposals and removing
unnecessary classes in the processes feed: the column class is causing
the processes not to be aligned with the debates above them, and the
margin bottom is not needed because the margin of the footer is already
enough.
Note we're using the code instead of the ID to get the goal in the URL.
IMHO this is what most people would expect; visiting a URL with a "7"
takes you to SDG number 7, and not to the one with "7" as a database ID.
In order to avoid tests (either automated tests or manual tests) passing
by coincidence due to the goal ID and the goal code being the same, I'm
shuffling the codes before entering them in the databse.
I've tried using `resolve` in the routes so the code is automatically
taken into account, but it doesn't work since `resolve` cannot be used
inside a namespace, and here we're within the `sdg` namespace.
Note using `params[:relatable_type].classify` is recognized as a
security risk by some tools. However, it's a false positive, since we've
added constraints to the URL so that paramenter can only have the values
we trust.
A list of links is a very common pattern in the web, and we use it in
many places. Here we're applying it to one of the most simple ones; the
help page.
Generally speaking, I'm not a big fan of helpers, but there are methods
which IMHO qualify as helpers when:
* They do not deal with application objects but mainly strings and
arrays
* They return text or an HTML tag
* Their logic is simple and splitting it into several methods is not
necessary
Many Rails helpers, like `tag`, follow these principles.
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 were writing the same text over and over for the same translations.
Since they all serve the same function, it's perfectly fine for them to
have the same text, and so we can have a shared translation.
This way we simplify the HTML and generating similar menus will be
easier. We also improve the experience for screen reader users, who
might have been hearing the icons as text because we weren't using the
`aria-hidden` attribute.
We're still keeping the "icon-" classes for compatibility with CONSUL
installations which might have changed this code.
From a semantic point of view, there's no reason to add a strong
emphasis to the menu items.
Besides, using CSS simplifies the code and is less error-prone. For
instance, the "stats" section didn't have a <strong> tag, and so it was
the only one which wasn't bold.
A <header> tag is the natural place to have headings.
Since we already had the logo there, IMHO it makes sense to merge both
the <h1> tag and the logo together. We were already doing so in the
devise layout.
From the sceen reader users' point of view, having a link with the text
"CONSUL logo" is a bit confusing, since it seems to imply the link will
get us to the CONSUL logo. Using the organization name as the text of
the link makes more sense.
One thing changes, though. Before this commit, the first thing on the
page a screen reader user would hear about would be the organization
name. Now the language selector and the top links are announced before
the organization name is read. That's fine, since the actual first thing
these users will hear is the content of the <title> tag, which contains
the organization name as well.
We were using a "push" div in order to force the footer to the bottom,
and were using a wrapper with a minimum height and negative margins.
The same thing can be accomplished using flex and making the wrapper
fill the empty space, which in my humble opinion simplifies the code and
makes it easier to follow.
We could further simplify the code by removing the wrapper div or the
footer wrapper, although I'm not sure the benefits overcome potential
inconveniences caused to other institutions who might have custom styles
based on the existence of these wrappers.
Now that comments and TOC can be closed at the same time, we use a flex
layout so the main content uses the available width.
We're also making the comments work better on medium-sized screens,
since previously they had a fixed width and now the width is adapted to
the size of the screen.
Since now the comment box element has a relative position instead of an
absolute one, we need to consider the draft panel height when
calculating the comment box position.
We were using JavaScript to show/hide the Table of Contents.
In my humble opinion, the <details> tag has a few shortcomings [1][2],
which means we should be careful about when to use it.
IMHO a Table of Contents is a good candidate for this tag because it's a
very common pattern to add a show/hide behavior for it, even if using it
means the "navigation" role (which we are *not* using anyway) wouldn't
be identified correctly.
I'm adding a <details> tag to the comments section as well for
consistency and in order to simplify the code. I'm not sure this is as
good an application of the <details> tag, though, but then again I'm not
sure about the interface we use to show/hide the comments (and this
feeling is increased by the fact that we use a different interface on
small screens). If we decide to change the interface in the future, we
might consider using the <details> tag for the Table of Contents but not
for the comments.
Since the <details> tag is not supported on Internet Explorer, I'm
only adding styles to this tag using the `:not([open])` option. On
Internet Explorer <details> will always be opened and so these styles
will be ignored.
[1] https://adrianroselli.com/2019/04/details-summary-are-not-insert-control-here.html
[2] https://daverupert.com/2019/12/why-details-is-not-an-accordion/
Note the CSS could probably be improved to avoid duplication with other
button style definitions. However, that's fine because we're going to
change the style of the links soon.
For the same reason, I haven't bothered to style every single link the
way it was until now.
