Before the "valuating" phase, all investments have undecided feasibility
and none have been selected, so the filters would return no results
(except the "not_unfeasible" one, which would return everything).
We removed it in commit c322b2c4a because it was hard to know the
difference between "Feasible" and "Not unfeasible". We're renaming the
"Not unfeasible" filter instead.
We're also moving the "selected" filter so it appears before the
"unselected" filter, just like the "feasible" filter appears before the
"unfeasible" filter.
As mentioned in commit bc0f04075, a <select> field which submits its
form on change causes many accessibility and usability issues. In this
case there was also an incompatibility with the advanced search filter
which caused a bug solved in commit 541a5fa89.
So the question is where to position the filters and how to display
them. One factor to take into the account is how relevant these filters
are, particularly compared to the links to select the prefered order,
since we don't usually give users the choice of both filters and orders.
Our filters don't really make sense until the valuation phase starts,
since before that phase investments aren't selected nor their
feasibility is decided.
After that phase, the only phase where citizens are really involved
is the final voting; the rest of the phases are done by valuators and
administrators. In the final voting, citizens can only vote on selected
projects, and that's the default filter during that phase.
So these filters are mainly there for information purposes, and not to
help citizens in the phases where they're actually involved (accepting
projects, selecting projects and balloting).
Orders, on the other hand, play a crucial role during the final voting
phase. Since citizens might have already voted for a few projects and
have, let's say, 100,000€ left, ordering by price allows them to find
which projects are within their remaining budget.
In conclusion, orders are more important than filters, and so they
should have a more prominent place.
For consistency with the proposals section, where we've got some links
in the sidebar (bottom part of the page on small screens) providing a
similar funcionality, like accessing selected proposals or archived or
retired proposals, we're moving the investments filters to the sidebar
(bottom part of the page on small screens) as well.
There was an edge case where we could access the headings index without
sending the mode parameter in the URL. That meant when sending the
headings form we could send a form with the mode hidden field set to an
empty string. When that happened, the returned text was
`t("admin.budgets.help.#{i18n_namespace}.`, which returned a hash.
Using `multiple` when an empty strin is received solves the issue.
The text "Groups and headings" might cause users to think both groups
and headings have the same hierarchy, and wonder whether what they
immediately see are groups or headings.
Using "Heading groups" we make it clear that what comes immediately is a
group, and then we see each group has headings.
Since the message might appear several times on the same page, it's
useful to give a bit more context. Besides, usability tests show that
when there's a group with no headings, there's no clear indication on
the page that the group is actually a group and not a heading.
We're also adding some emphasis to the group name in the "Showing
headings" message, to be consistent with the emphasis we've
added the the group name in the "No headings" message.
Captions benefit blind screen reader users who navigate through tables,
particularly in this case because we potentially have several tables
with headings (one table per group), so when navigating through tables
it might be hard to know which group the headings belong to.
In this case they also benefit sighted users. Usability tests have shown
the "Groups and headings" section is a bit confusing, so adding a
caption like "Headings in Districts" helps clarifying Districts is a
group and the table refers to headings in that group.
The very same table is rendered in the "headings" step of the budget
creation wizard. However, in that case the information of the caption is
redundant because the page is specific for headings belonging to a
certain group. We're making the element invisible but still keeping it
for screen reader users in order to ease their navigation through
tables.
The population field is optional and only used for statistic purposes,
and the content block feature is also secondary, so IMHO it's OK if we
don't display it in the index; if administrators need this information,
they can see it by going to the "edit heading" page.
With this change it's easier to navigate the table on small and medium
screens. Actually, the whole page is easier to navigate, since we
greatly reduce the cases where a horizontal scrollbar is present.
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.
Since managing investments is a very common action, with this link
administrators won't have to go back to the index page to manage
investments; they can access it from either the budgets index page or
the budget page.
Since now the links we've got on the budget page are similar to the ones
we've got in the index page table, we're styling them in a similar way.
We're also fixing a small typo en the investments path; it works exactly
the same way as it used to, but passing `budget` instead of `budget_id:
budget.id` is shorter and more consistent with what we do in other
places.
Both the calculate winners and delete actions benefit from some kind of
hint.
The "calculate winners" hint informs administrators that results won't
be publicly available unless the "show results" option is enabled.
The delete action was redirecting with an error message when the budget
couldn't be deleted; IMHO it's better to disable it and inform
administrators why it's disabled. Alternatively we could remove the
button completely; however, users might be looking for a way to delete a
budget and wouldn't find any hint about it.
We're now removing the "Delete" action from the budgets index table,
since most of the time it isn't possible to delete a budget and so the
action takes up space and we get little gain in return. We could keep
the "Delete" icon just for budgets which can be deleted; however, the
alignment of the table rows would suffer, making it harder to find the
intended action.
We currently don't have any links in the public area pointing to past
budgets, so having links in the admin section to both the budget and its
results seemed a bit redundant. We're going to add more links to the
budget actions soon, so we need to make room for them; otherwise we'll
have too many.
We're also changing the "Preview" text for a published budget. Since the
budget is already public, we aren't previewing it anymore but simply
viewing it.
And, to be consistent with the "See results" link, we're opening the
"Preview" link in the current tab. Opening links in a new tab is
generally a bad idea because takes control away from users, breaks the
back button and makes navigation particularly hard on mobile browsers.
It could be argued that in this case it's useful when users are editing
the budget in one tab and previewing it in another one, so we might add
this behavior back as long as we make it clear that the link opens in a
new tab [1].
[1] https://www.nngroup.com/articles/new-browser-windows-and-tabs/
Calculating winners before the balloting is over is useless (results
aren't published at that point) and can lead to the wrong results since
users are still voting and results might change.
And we were showing the button to calculate winners even when a budget
had finished. However, in this case the action to calculate winners did
nothing, which resulted in administrators seeing nothing happened after
pressing the button.
Before, users needed to navigate to the list of groups in order to
add, edit or delete a group.
Also, they need to navigate to the list of groups first, and then to
the list of headings for that group in order to add, edit or delete a
heading.
Now, it's possible to do all these actions for any group or heading
from the participatory budget view to bring simplicity and to reduce
the number of clicks from a user perspective.
Co-Authored-By: Javi Martín <javim@elretirao.net>
IMHO selecting in how many headings it's possible to support investments
isn't necessary when there's only one option to choose from. It's
obvious that if there's only one heading, it will be impossible to
select investments from more than one heading.
In the past it would have been confusing to add a way to directly
enable/disable a phase in the phases table because it was in the middle
of the form. So we would have had next to each other controls that don't
do anything until the form is sent and controls which modify the
database immediately. That's why we couldn't add the checkboxes we used
when using the wizard.
Now the phases aren't on the same page as the budget form, so we can
edit them independently. We're using a switch, so it's consistent with
the way we enable/disable features. We could have used checkboxes, but
with checkboxes, users expect they aren't changing anything until they
click on a button to send the form, so we'd have to add a button, and it
might be missed since we're going to add "buttons" for headings and
groups to this page which won't send a form but will be links.
Since we're changing the element with JavaScript after an AJAX call, we
need a way to find the button we're changing. The easiest way is adding
an ID attribute to all admin actions buttons/links.
Having links in the middle of a form distracts users from the task of
filling in the form, and following a link before submitting the form
will mean whatever has been filled in is lost.
And the budgets form is already very long and hard to fill in. Having
the phases table in the middle of it made it even harder. And, since
we're planning to add the option to manage groups and headings from the
same page, it's better to have a dedicated page for the form.
These tests don't work without JavaScript. They were passing because the
`within` method always passes in component tests.
This reverts most of commit 822140a14.
In component tests, the `within` method is actually an alias to RSpec's
`be_within` matcher, which is used to test numeric ranges. That meant
the tests always passed, even when there were bugs on the page.
In order to use `within` in component tests, we have to use
`page.within`. However, that also fails, since there's no such method
for `Capybara::Node::Simple'` objects, which are used in component
tests.
So we're using `page.find` instead.
See also pull request 945 in https://github.com/github/view_component
This way it's easier to test; changing it will also be easier.
During my experiments I made a mistake which wasn't covered by the test
suite. We're adding a test for this case.
Note we're using `i18n_content` in the component instead of `content`
because there's already a `content` method provided by ViewComponent.
When we try to register with omniauth and the email or username already exists,
we use the finish_signup and do_finish_signup actions to allow the user to choose
another email or username.
The do_finish_signup action of the registration controller calls the
send_oauth_confirmation_instructions method which is responsible for sending the
confirmation email.
In this method we were only validating the case that the email is duplicated. Now
we add one more condition that allows us to send the instructions for the case in
which we have had to change our username.
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.
Adding the error to the translation means Rails will automatically show
the error message in the view.
We're also adding a test to make sure the error message is correctly
displayed.
We now have duplication in the validation rules, however. Validating
translatable attributes is still a bit of mess.
This column wasn't used in any released Consul version since it was only
used during development. For the same reason, the task to migrate the
information in the `link` column to the `links` table isn't needed
either.
In commit baaec3a29 we started using the JavaScript driver in tests
dealing with the user menu, and made all tests pass.
However, we didn't update some officing tests that were also passing
when there was a bug in the code. That's because now that these tests
use a JavaScript driver, the link to "Polling officers" is never present
before pressing the "Menu" item. So tests checking the link isn't
present when loading the page always pass.
We were already doing so for debates and investments.
We probably never noticed because this is an edge case that requires
enabling a feature, people adding comments, and then disabling the
feature.
It could be argued that seeing which proposals a user follows is a good
indicator of which proposals a user has supported, since we're
automatically creating follows for supported proposals since commit
74fbde09f. So now, we're extending the `public_interests` funcionality,
so it only shows elements users are following if they've enabled it.
This is an improvement over using the `public_activity` attribute in two
ways:
* The `public_interests` attribute is disabled by default, so by default
other users won't be able to see what a user is following
* Who has created proposals/debates/investments/comments is public
information, while who is following which elements is not; so enabling
`public_activity` shouldn't imply potentially private information should
be displayed as well
We've considered removing the `public_interests` attribute completely
and just hiding the "following" page for everyone except its owner, but
keeping it provides more compatibility with existing installations.
The `click_link` part did nothing other than scrolling to the element,
since in these cases we've got a same-page link and the element it links
to is already on the page. Programmers reading the test would expect the
link to load the page or change to a different tab and would think the
element it links to wasn't there before clicking the link (at least I
did).
Since targets didn't have a title but only a long description, every
form allowing to select targets was pretty much unusable: we either
displayed just the code or the whole description.
Now, with a concise title, it's easier to find and select the desired
target.
The titles have been copied from The Global Goals page [1].
Note we're using the `short_title` I18n key for the `title` method and
the `long_title` I18n key for the `long_title` method. We can't use
`title` as I18n key instead of `short_title` because it would affect
existing translations.
[1] https://www.globalgoals.org/
The same way we don't render empty regular tags since commit 4d27bbeba.
This way we avoid adding an empty `<div class="sdg-tag-list">` tag,
which might have associated styles (in custom CONSUL installation
styles, for instance) and thus break the layout
Based on an EPS file downloaded from The Global Goals page [1].
Although in that page there are icons for other languages we support and
that we've only got in PNG format, the Spanish ones are the only ones
which are similar to the official PNG ones provided by the UN or
UN-related organizations like UNRIC. Icons in other languages (like
Chinese, French or Russian) are not that similar to the official PNG
icons and their quality is (in my humble opinion) lower.
Since SVG icons are smaller and can be compressed, users browsing the
page in Spanish will have to download about 80KB for the SDG icons,
instead of the 240KB they needed to download when using PNGs.
[1] https://www.globalgoals.org/resources
These icons have been downloaded from The Global Goals page [1]. English
is the official language of this page and the only one containing all
the information.
Since SVG icons are smaller and can be compressed, users browsing the
page in English will have to download about 45KB for the SDG icons,
instead of the 250KB they needed to download when using PNGs.
[1] https://globalgoals.org
These tests were checking the URLs of documents and images pointed to
the URL generated by the `attachment.url` method. In order to do so, we
were running database queries after starting the process running the
browser, which is sometimes causing database inconsistencies when
running the tests.
So I'm simply removing the URL check. The tests are slightly less useful
now, but it isn't like they were 100% right in the first place. After
all, if the `attachment.url` method wasn't working properly, the tests
were still passing.
We were testing the URL of the image changes to `missing.png`, but
actually that's confusing because the image record is now invalid and so
its changes can't be saved. That means that, when rendered in the
browser, the image won't render the `missing.png` image but will try to
render the destroyed one.
If we want to render the `missing.png` image when the attachment has
been destroyed, we need to remove the attachment presence validation or
change the `url` method so it detects when an attachment is missing.
We're already using a custom controller to handle direct uploads.
Besides, as mentioned by one of Active Storage co-authors [1], the
Active Storage DirectUploadsController doesn't provide any
authentication or validation at all, meaning anyone could create blobs
in our database by posting to `/rails/active_storage/direct_uploads`.
The response there could be then used to upload any file (again, without
validation) to `/rails/active_storage/disk/`.
For now, we're monkey-patching the controllers in order to send
unauthorized responses, since we aren't using these routes. If we ever
enable direct uploads with Active Storage, we'll have to add some sort
of authentication.
Similar upload solutions like CKEditor don't have this issue since their
controllers inherit from `ApplicationController` (which includes
authorization rules), while Active Storage controllers inherit from
`ActionController::Base`.
[1] https://discuss.rubyonrails.org/t/activestorage-direct-uploads-safe-by-default-how-to-make-it-safe/74863/2
There could be inconsistencies in the database and an attachment might
have a `record_id` pointing to a record which no longer exist. We were
getting an exception in this case.
