I'm not sure why it isn't already done by foundation's form builder. It
doesn't make any sense to change an ID of a form field without changing
the `for` attribute of its label.
Using the block syntax to generate the label with a <span> tag inside
isn't necessary after upgrading foundation_rails_helpers. Before the
upgrade, we couldn't do so because the <span> tag was escaped.
We were monkey-patching FoundationRailsHelper::Formbuilder, which made
form customization difficult. We can inherit from it, which is the
standard way of extending what an existing class does, and make our form
the default one.
This is a very subtle behaviour: `match /attachment/i` could represent a
regular expression, but it could also represent a division like
`match / attachment / i`. So we need to make an exception to the usual
way we omit parenthesis in RSpec expectations.
Naming two variables the same way is confusing at the very least, and
can lead to hard to debug errors. That's why the Ruby interpreter issues
a warning when we do so.
Some of our team members don't like using `do...end` for scopes, and
some other team members don't like using `{ ... }` for multi-line
blocks, so we've agreed to use class methods instead.
It could be argued that the following lines use single quotes to escape
double quotes, but on the other hand, using a single quote isn't a
great benefit.
Moderate legislation proposals
- added a controller for moderation/legislation
- updated view to appropriate link + added route
- added a spec
- Feature test
- test for faded
- javascripts for visual effects
These files create a fake class using an instance variable. While the
proper thing to do would be to refactor the `HasOrders` and `HasFilters`
concerns so they didn't use instance variables but methods, I don't
think that's going to happen in the near future.
This one is a bit different than our usual scenario, since we create
three annotations and we only use two of them in the specs (because we
visit the path to that annotation). So there are probably better options
than the combination of `let!` and `before` I've chosen.
Having two questions, each of them with two comments, made the code hard
to follow.
Grouping the comments inside the block creating the questions makes it
easier to know which comment belongs to which question, even if the code
is still not 100% readable.
We also remove instance variables, which by the way used the same
variable name for two different things.
We couldn't declare them inside the block because they would be
considered local variables and its value would be lost when the block
was finished. So we were using instance variables instead.
However, with instance variables we don't get any warnings when we
misspell their names. We can avoid them by declaring the local variables
before the block starts.
