The "by_author" scope in Poll::PartialResult is no longer used anywhere in
the code. Its usage was replaced by Poll::Answer.by_author in commit
6bc4f5b307 ("adds Poll::Answer model for web users").
Similar to what we did in PR "Avoid duplicate records in poll answers" 5539,
specifically in commit 503369166, we want to stop relying on the plain text
"answer" and start using "option_id" to avoid issues with counts across
translations and to add consistency to the poll_partial_results table.
Note that we also moved the `possible_answers` method from Poll::Question to
Poll::Question::Option, since the list of valid answers really comes from the
options of a question and not from the question itself. Tests were updated
to validate answers against the translations of the assigned option.
Additionally, we renamed lambda parameters in validations to improve clarity.
This method is deprecated in Rails 5.1 because its behavior will be
different in `before` and `after` callbacks.
Here we're replacing the deprecated `attribute_changed?` and
`attribute_was` with `will_save_change_to_attribute?` and
`attribute_in_database` during `before_save` callbacks.
https://github.com/rails/rails/pull/32835/
I had mixed feelings about this rule, since I like spaces where
possible.
However, I changed my mind when I realized writing `->(thing) { }` was
similar to defining a method, and we don't have a space before the
parenthesis when defining a method.
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
```
Usually when we specify a `belongs_to` relations, we also specify its
equivalent `has_many`. That allows us to write, for example:
`topic.user.topics`.
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
