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
When customizing CONSUL, one of the most common actions is adding a new
field to a form.
This requires modifying the permitted/allowed parameters. However, in
most cases, the method returning these parameters returned an instance
of `ActionController::Parameters`, so adding more parameters to it
wasn't easy.
So customizing the code required copying the method returning those
parameters and adding the new ones. For example:
```
def something_params
params.require(:something).permit(
:one_consul_attribute,
:another_consul_attribute,
:my_custom_attribute
)
end
```
This meant that, if the `something_params` method changed in CONSUL, the
customization of this method had to be updated as well.
So we're extracting the logic returning the parameters to a method which
returns an array. Now this code can be customized without copying the
original method:
```
alias_method :consul_allowed_params, :allowed_params
def allowed_params
consul_allowed_params + [:my_custom_attribute]
end
```
Note we don't cast negative votes when users remove their support. That
way we provide compatibility for institutions who have implemented real
negative votes (in case there are / will be any), and we also keep the
database meaningful: it's not that users downvoted something; they
simply removed their upvote.
Co-Authored-By: Javi Martín <javim@elretirao.net>
Co-Authored-By: Julian Nicolas Herrero <microweb10@gmail.com>
Since we're going to add an action to remove supports, having a separate
controller makes things easier.
Note there was a strange piece of code which assumed users were not
verified if they couldn't vote investments. Now the code is also
strange, since it assumes users are not verified if they can't create
votes. We might need to revisit these conditions if our logic changes in
the future.
It was hard to notice what was going on when supporting one investment
which was at the bottom of the investment index page.
I wonder whether we should add the title of the investment to this text;
I'm not doing so because we don't do that anywhere else.
In the previous commit I mentioned:
> If I'm right, the `investment_votes` instance variable only exists to
> avoid several database queries to get whether the current user has
> supported each of the investments.
>
> However, that doesn't make much sense when only one investment is
> shown.
Now let's discuss the case when there are several investments, like in
the investments index:
* There are 10 investments per page by default
* Each query takes less than a millisecond
* We still make a query per investment to check whether the current user
voted in a different group
* AFAIK, there have been no performance tests showing these
optimizations make the request to the investments index significantly
faster
* These optimizations make the code way more complex than it is without
them
Considering all these points, I'm removing the optimizations. I'm fine
with adding `includes` calls to preload records and avoid N+1 queries
even if there are no performance tests showing they make the application
faster because the effect on the code complexity is negligible. But
that's not the case here.
Note we're using `defined?` instead of the `||=` operator because the
`||=` operator will not serve its purpose when the result of the
operation returns `false`.
If I'm right, the `investment_votes` instance variable only exists to
avoid several database queries to get whether the current user has
supported each of the investments.
However, that doesn't make much sense when only one investment is shown.
In this case, the number of queries stays the same, and so we can
simplify the code by rendering the component with an optional parameter.
In the Management section when creating an investment we were not passing the
document attributes, so we were never able to associate documents.
Make the nested_documentable spec compatible with the Management section.
In the Management section when creating an investment we were not passing the
images attributes, so we were never able to associate images.
Make the nested_imageable spec compatible with the Management section.
We were very inconsistent regarding these rules.
Personally I prefer no empty lines around blocks, clases, etc... as
recommended by the Ruby style guide [1], and they're the default values
in rubocop, so those are the settings I'm applying.
The exception is the `private` access modifier, since we were leaving
empty lines around it most of the time. That's the default rubocop rule
as well. Personally I don't have a strong preference about this one.
[1] https://rubystyle.guide/#empty-lines-around-bodies
* Adapt translatable spec helper method to work with budget investments
* Remove old attributes from strong parameters
* Add missing locales to admin.yml and budgets.yml
* Change SpendingProposal.title_max_length and
SpendingProposal.description_max_lenght to Budget::Investment methods
* Add budget investment translatable attribute translations
