While people using screen readers already have keyboard shortcuts to
jump to the <main> tag, there are people who navigate the page with the
keyboard using just the tab key, and for them, this link provides a way
to save time and start reading the main content instead of having to
manually go through all the navigation links every time a new page is
loaded.
Note that we had to add an additional `width: 0` rule because
Foundation's `element-invisible` would apply `1px` and the test checking
for `visible: :hidden` would faile.
Many pages had this tag, but many other didn't, which made navigation
inconsistent for people using screen readers.
Note that there are slight changes in two pages:
* The homepage now includes the banner and the content of the
`shared/header` element inside the <main> tag
* The budgets index now includes the banner inside the <main> tag
I see both potential advantages and disadvantages of this approach,
since banners aren't necessarily related to the main content of a page
but on the other hand they aren't the same across pages and people using
screen readers might accidentally skip them if they jump to the <main>
tag.
So I'm choosing the option that is easier to implement.
Note we're adding a `public-content` class to the <main> element in the
application layout. This might be redundat because the element could
already be accessed through the `.public main` selector, but this is
consistent with the `admin-content` class used in the admin section, and
without it the <main> element would sometimes have an empty class
attribute and we'd have to use `if content_for?(:main_class)` or
`tag.main` which IMHO makes the code less consistent.
The Capybara::DSL monkey-patch is only done on the `visit` method
because it's the only reliable one. Other methods like `click_link`
generate AJAX requests, so `expect(page).to have_css "main", count: 1`
might be executed before the AJAX request is finished, meaning it
wouldn't properly test anything.
We're using the "tenants" subfolder for consistency with the folder
structure we use in ActiveStorage and because some CONSUL installations
might have folders inside the `data` folder which might conflict with
the folders created by tenants.
Note that the Python scripts have a lot of duplication, meaning we need
to change all of them. I'm not refactoring them because I'm not familiar
enough with these scripts (or with Python, for that matter).
Also note that the scripts folder is still shared by all tenants,
meaning it isn't possible to have different scripts for different
tenants. I'm not sure how this situation should be handled; again, I'm
not familiar enough with this feature.
While we ping some search engines (currently, only Google) when
generating the sitemap files, we weren't telling search engines
accessing through the `robots.txt` file where to find the sitemap. Now
we're doing so, using the right sitemap file for the right tenant.
When administrators disabled features and users tried to access them
with the browser, we were responding with a 500 "Internal Server Error"
page, which in my humble opinion was incorrect. There was no error at
all; the server worked exactly as expected.
I think a 403 "Forbidden" code is better; since that feature is
disabled, we're refusing to let users access it.
We could also respond with a 404 "Not found", although I wonder whether
that'll be confusing when administrators temporarily or accidentally
disable a feature.
A similar thing might happen if we responded with a 410 "Gone" code.
Actually this case might be more confusing since users aren't that
familiar with this code.
In any case, all these options are better than the 500 error.
