The outline was invisible when we had the link containing block
elements, and I didn't manage to fix it, so the easiest solution is to
use an inline link and style the card with CSS.
This way it's going to be easier to style the link on focus, since
styles like `box-shadow` weren't working properly when we had an inline
link with block elements inside, and adding the `display: inline-block`
element to the link didn't play well with the layout we were using for
the recommendations.
We're also fixing the focus outline on recommendations, which didn't
look properly because of the border added with:
```
.recommended-index {
// (...)
@include full-width-border(top, 1px solid #fafafa);
}
```
The border was on top of the outline, breaking it. Increasing the
`z-index` of the element containing the outline solves the issue.
In a similar way, we're making sure the button to hide recommendations
stays visible so it's easier to click it.
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 comment by the current user:
```authorize! :create, Vote.new(voter: current_user, votable: @comment)```
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: :comment, through_association: :votes_for```
This line tries to load the resource @comment 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 @comment.vote.
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).
In this commit, we have performed a refactoring to enhance code organization.
Several partials that were solely responsible for rendering components have been removed.
Instead, we are now directly rendering the components within the views where these
partials were previously used.
In order to reduce the code used to add styles to the buttons,
we removed the classes that had been added and handled it with
the new aria-pressed attribute
Previously the condition was needed because _without it_ the Admin::Poll::Questions::Answers::ImagesController would have resulted in settings? evaluating to true. This was undesired because that controller was scoped under Polls, so only polls? should have evaluated to true. Now that we have moved the images link to the customization menu, this check is not necessary anymore.
There were already some menu items to customization pages under the "Site content" menu. It therefore makes sense to move "Custom images" and "Custom content blocks" (which were previously
located under "Settings") to "Site content" as well.
This syntax has been added in Ruby 3.1.
Not using a variable name might not be very descriptive, but it's just
as descriptive as using "block" as a variable name. Using just `&` we
get the same amount of information than using `&block`: that we're
passing a block.
We're still using `&action` in `around_action` methods because here we
aren't using a generic name for the variable, so (at least for now) we
aren't running this cop on controllers using `around_action`.
We were getting a warning since upgrading to Rails 6.1:
DEPRECATION WARNING: Calling `delete` to an ActiveModel::Errors messages
hash is deprecated. Please call `ActiveModel::Errors#delete` instead.
So we're deleting the error instead of deleting the message.
We were getting a warning in one of the tests:
DEPRECATION WARNING: Rendering actions with '.' in the name is
deprecated: application/nonExistentJavaScript.js
I haven't found a case where the behavior on production environments is
different due to this change; the application seems to behave the same
way as it used to. So I'm not adding tests for this change.
Internet Explorer 8 was released in 2009 and people using it already
know that most web pages look broken on it, so we don't need to warn
them.
Removing it makes our application layout file much easier to read and
modify.
This rule was added in rubocop 1.44.0. It's useful to avoid accidental
`unless !condition` clauses.
Note we aren't replacing `unless zero?` with `if nonzero?` because we
never use `nonzero?`; using it sounds like `if !zero?`.
Replacing `unless any?` with `if none?` is only consistent if we also replace
`unless present?` with `if blank?`, so we're also adding this case. For
consistency, we're also replacing `unless blank?` with `if present?`.
We're also simplifying code dealing with `> 0` conditions in order to
make the code (hopefully) easier to understand.
Also for consistency, we're enabling the `Style/InverseMethods` rule,
which follows a similar idea.
We originally added the `cached_votes_up > 0` in commit 4ce95e273
because back then `cached_votes_up` was used in the denominator. That's
no longer the case, and it doesn't make sense to mark a debate with 1
vote and 10 flags as conflictive but not doing it when the debate has no
votes and 1000 flags.
We're fixing the bug right now because we're about to change the
affected line in order to apply a new rubocop rule.
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 `id:` condition works with a list of proposals that might include
nil items, so there's no need to compact it and manually get the IDs.
Note this scope is probably inefficient, since it instantiates proposal
objects (with the `find_voted_items` method) for something that could be
done with a database query. We might change it in he future.
