Not doing so has a few gotchas when working with relations, particularly
with records which are not stored in the database.
I'm excluding the related content file because it's got a very peculiar
relationship with itself: the `has_one :opposite_related_content` has no
inverse; the relation itself is its inverse. It's a false positive since
the inverse condition is true:
```
content.opposite_related_content.opposite_related_content.object_id ==
content.object_id
```
Just like we do in the Budget module, and in some places in the Poll and
Legislation modules, we don't need to specify the class name when the
name of the relation matches the name of a class in the same module.
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
Execute rake task every day to detect new actions available for not archived proposals. If there are new actions available for today, send email to proposal's author with information text, new actions available and link to proposal dashboard url.
Create new Dashboard::Action class method to detect new actions between yesterday and today for a proposal.
- Published proposal: Only detect new actions with "published_proposal" field eq true
- Draft proposal: Only detect new actions with "published_proposal" field eq false
Add to active_for class method and to active_resources controller method the new scope by_proposal.
- Published proposal: display all actions.
- Draft proposal: only display actions for draft proposals.
* Added missing specs
* Removed models that were refactored previously
* Added simplecov when executing specs locally
* Fixed bug in poll model validation that was causing an 500 error.
