We were already saving it as a time, but we didn't offer an interface to
select the time due to lack of decent browser support for this field
back when this feature was added.
However, nowadays all major browsers support this field type and, at the
time of writing, at least 86.5% of the browsers support it [1]. This
percentage could be much higher, since support in 11.25% of the browsers
is unknown.
Note we still need to support the case where this field isn't supported,
and so we offer a fallback and on the server side we don't assume we're
always getting a time. We're doing a strange hack so we set the field
type to text before changing its value; otherwise old Firefox browsers
crashed.
Also note that, until now, we were storing end dates in the database as
a date with 00:00 as its time, but we were considering the poll to be
open until 23:59 that day. So, in order to keep backwards compatibility,
we're adding a task to update the dates of existing polls so we get the
same behavior we had until now.
This also means budget polls are now created so they end at the
beginning of the day when the balloting phase ends. This is consistent
with the dates we display in the budget phases table.
Finally, there's one test where we're using `beginning_of_minute` when
creating a poll. That's because Chrome provides an interface to enter a
time in a `%H:%M` format when the "seconds" value of the provided time
is zero. However, when the "seconds" value isn't zero, Chrome provides
an interface to enter a time in a `%H:%M:%S` format. Since Capybara
doesn't enter the seconds when using `fill_in` with a time, the test
failed when Capybara tried to enter a time in the `%H:%M` format when
Chrome expected a time in the `%H:%M:%S` format.
To solve this last point, an alternative would be to manually provide
the format when using `fill_in` so it includes the seconds.
[1] https://caniuse.com/mdn-html_elements_input_type_datetime-local
This is consistent with the way we show the duration of a budget and its
phases. Since budgets are the section with the most recent changes in
the admin area, we're using it as a reference.
Note that, unlike budgets (which are shown to finish at the beginning of
their ending day), a poll has always been considered to finish at the
end of their ending day, so we're showing it this way.
We're also solving a minor usability issue. While it's pretty intuitive
that a poll starting on a certain date will start at the beginning of
the day, a poll ending on a certain date isn't clear about when it
finishes exactly: is it at the beginning of the day, or at the end of
the day?
So now we're making this point clear.
The buttons to create polls associated with a budget were too prominent,
appearing on the table as if they were as used as the link to manage
investments. Most CONSUL installations don't use physical booths, and
would probably wonder what that button is about.
We're moving it to a more discrete place, at the bottom of the budget
page. This way we can also split the action in two: on budgets not
having a poll, we display the button in a not-so-accessible position (at
the bottom of the page), since this button will only be used once per
budget at most. Once the poll has been created, it means this feature is
going to be used, so we display a link to manage ballots more
prominently at the top of the page. If the budget has finished the final
voting stage without creating a poll, we don't show either the link or
the button because this feature can no longer be used.
We're also adding some texts indicating what this feature is about,
since it's probably one of the least understood features in CONSUL
(probably because the interface is very confusing... but that's a
different story).
Since now from the budget page we can access every feature related to
the budget, we can remove the "preview" action from the budgets index
table, since this feature isn't that useful for budgets once they're
published.
Now the budgets table doesn't take as much space as it used to, although
it's still too wide to be handled properly on devices with a small
screen.
Links acting like buttons have a few disadvantages.
First, screen readers will announce them as "links". Screen reader users
usually associate links with "things that get you somewhere" and buttons
with "things that perform an action". So when something like "Delete,
link" is announced, they'll probably think this is a link which will
take them to another page where they can delete a record.
Furthermore, the URL of the link for the "destroy" action might be the
same as the URL for the "show" action (only one is accessed with a
DELETE request and the other one with a GET request). That means screen
readers could announce the link like "Delete, visited link", which is
very confusing.
They also won't work when opening links in a new tab, since opening
links in a new tab always results in a GET request to the URL the link
points to.
Finally, submit buttons work without JavaScript enabled, so they'll work
even if the JavaScript in the page hasn't loaded (for whatever reason).
For all these reasons (and probably many more), using a button to send
forms is IMHO superior to using links.
There's one disadvantage, though. Using `button_to` we create a <form>
tag, which means we'll generate invalid HTML if the table is inside
another form. If we run into this issue, we need to use `button_tag`
with a `form` attribute and then generate a form somewhere else inside
the HTML (with `content_for`).
Note we're using `button_to` with a block so it generates a <button>
tag. Using it in a different way the text would result in an <input />
tag, and input elements can't have pseudocontent added via CSS.
The following code could be a starting point to use the `button_tag`
with a `form` attribute. One advantage of this approach is screen
readers wouldn't announce "leaving form" while navigating through these
buttons. However, it doesn't work in Internet Explorer.
```
ERB:
<% content_for(:hidden_content, form_tag(path, form_options) {}) %>
<%= button_tag text, button_options %>
Ruby:
def form_id
path.gsub("/", "_")
end
def form_options
{ id: form_id, method: options[:method] }
end
def button_options
html_options.except(:method).merge(form: form_id)
end
Layout:
<%= content_for :hidden_content %> # Right before the `</body>`
```
The word "budget" in the "Preview budget" link is redundant.
On the other hand, the words "Manage", Edit" and "Admin" are not
really necessary in my humble opinion. Just like in the admin
navigation menu we use "Participatory budgets" instead of "Manage
Participatory budgets", the fact that we're going to manage or
admin or edit something can be deduced from the fact that we're in
the admin section.
Besides, it isn't clear to me why we use "Manage" for projects,
"Edit" for heading groups and "Admin" for ballots. The differences
between these three concepts might be too subtle for me.
The previous paragraphs haven't been corroborated with real users,
though, so I might be mistaken and we might need to revisit these
links in the future.
These actions still take quite a lot of space. Maybe in the future we
could remove the "delete" icon, at least on budgets which cannot be
deleted.
These tests check what happens from the user's point of view. For
instance, we check that after disabling recommendations, they are not
shown. What happens in the database is not related to the user
experience.
Furthermore, checking the database after the browser has started is
proving to be a major source for inconsistent data in specs.
JavaScript is used by about 98% of web users, so by testing without it
enabled, we're only testing that the application works for a very
reduced number of users.
We proceeded this way in the past because CONSUL started using Rails 4.2
and truncating the database between JavaScript tests with database
cleaner, which made these tests terribly slow.
When we upgraded to Rails 5.1 and introduced system tests, we started
using database transactions in JavaScript tests, making these tests much
faster. So now we can use JavaScript tests everywhere without critically
slowing down our test suite.
We were repeating the same code over and over (with a few variants) to
setup tests which require an administrator. We can use a tag and
simplify the code.
