As far as possible I think the code is clearer if we use CRUD actions
rather than custom actions. This will make it easier to add the action
to remove votes in the next commit.
Note that we are adding this line as we need to validate it that a vote
can be created on a comment by the current user:
```authorize! :create, Vote.new(voter: current_user, votable: @comment)```
We have done it this way and not with the following code as you might
expect, as this way two votes are created instead of one.
```load_and_authorize_resource through: :comment, through_association: :votes_for```
This line tries to load the resource @comment and through the association
"votes_for" it tries to create a new vote associated to that debate.
Therefore a vote is created when trying to authorise the resource and
then another one in the create action, when calling @comment.vote.
As far as possible I think the code is clearer if we use CRUD actions
rather than custom actions. This will make it easier to add the action
to remove votes in the next commit.
Note that we are adding this line as we need to validate it that a vote
can be created on a debate by the current user:
```authorize! :create, Vote.new(voter: current_user, votable: @debate)```
We have done it this way and not with the following code as you might
expect, as this way two votes are created instead of one.
```load_and_authorize_resource through: :debate, through_association: :votes_for```
This line tries to load the resource @debate and through the association
"votes_for" it tries to create a new vote associated to that debate.
Therefore a vote is created when trying to authorise the resource and
then another one in the create action, when calling @debate.vote_by (which
is called by @debate.register_vote).
This syntax has been added in Ruby 3.1.
Not using a variable name might not be very descriptive, but it's just
as descriptive as using "block" as a variable name. Using just `&` we
get the same amount of information than using `&block`: that we're
passing a block.
We're still using `&action` in `around_action` methods because here we
aren't using a generic name for the variable, so (at least for now) we
aren't running this cop on controllers using `around_action`.
We were getting a warning since upgrading to Rails 6.1:
DEPRECATION WARNING: Calling `delete` to an ActiveModel::Errors messages
hash is deprecated. Please call `ActiveModel::Errors#delete` instead.
So we're deleting the error instead of deleting the message.
We were getting a warning in one of the tests:
DEPRECATION WARNING: Rendering actions with '.' in the name is
deprecated: application/nonExistentJavaScript.js
I haven't found a case where the behavior on production environments is
different due to this change; the application seems to behave the same
way as it used to. So I'm not adding tests for this change.
This rule was added in rubocop 1.44.0. It's useful to avoid accidental
`unless !condition` clauses.
Note we aren't replacing `unless zero?` with `if nonzero?` because we
never use `nonzero?`; using it sounds like `if !zero?`.
Replacing `unless any?` with `if none?` is only consistent if we also replace
`unless present?` with `if blank?`, so we're also adding this case. For
consistency, we're also replacing `unless blank?` with `if present?`.
We're also simplifying code dealing with `> 0` conditions in order to
make the code (hopefully) easier to understand.
Also for consistency, we're enabling the `Style/InverseMethods` rule,
which follows a similar idea.
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
We were using `prepend: true`, but it doesn't seem to be necessary.
We were also loading the draft versions twice in the index, so we can
remove the line loading them a second time.
We forgot to remove it in commit 8066b96fe. We're removing it now
because these methods didn't follow the Layout/BlockAlignment rubocop
rule, which we're about to add.
For the HashAlignment rule, we're using the default `key` style (keys
are aligned and values aren't) instead of the `table` style (both keys
and values are aligned) because, even if we used both in the
application, we used the `key` style a lot more. Furthermore, the
`table` style looks strange in places where there are both very long and
very short keys and sometimes we weren't even consistent with the
`table` style, aligning some keys without aligning other keys.
Ideally we could align hashes to "either key or table", so developers
can decide whether keeping the symmetry of the code is worth it in a
case-per-case basis, but Rubocop doesn't allow this option.
We were already applying these rules in most cases.
Note we aren't enabling the `MultilineArrayLineBreaks` rule because
we've got places with many elements whire it isn't clear whether
having one element per line would make the code more readable.
Since IRB has improved its support for multiline, the main argument
towars using a trailing dot no longer affects most people.
It still affects me, though, since I use Pry :), but I agree
leading dots are more readable, so I'm enabling the rule anyway.
By using the bindPopup function instead of the click event
popups work when using the keyboard.
Note that now we are loading all the map markers in the first
request in a single query to the database (needed when there
is a lot or markers to show). Because of that we removed the
AJAX endpoint.
Note that in the budgets wizard test we now create district with no
associated geozone, so the text "all city" will appear in the districts
table too, meaning we can't use `within "section", text: "All city" do`
anymore since it would result in an ambiguous match.
Co-Authored-By: Julian Herrero <microweb10@gmail.com>
Co-Authored-By: Javi Martín <javim@elretirao.net>
In the commit: 315c57929a this code was added, but at that time this field
was no longer in use, even though it existed in the database.
I don't know why this line was added, but there seems to be no point in
keeping it.
The only view that linked to this action was never used and so it was
deleted in commit 0bacd5baf.
Since now the proposals controller is the only one place rendering the
`shared/map` partial, we're moving it to the proposals views.
It was possible to remove a map location from a different proposal (even
one created by a different author) by modifying the hidden `id`
parameter in the form.
So we're making sure the map location we destroy is the one associated
to the proposal we're updating.
Since we're now using the `@proposal` instance variable in the
`destroy_map_location_association` method, we're calling that method
after loading the resource with cancancan.
We were rendering the whole sidebar again, which wasn't necessary since
most of it remains unchanged. This resulted in complicated code to pass
the necessary information to render the same map that was already
rendered. Furthermore, when users had been moving the map around or
zooming out, we were resetting the map to its default settings after
voting, which was potentially annoying.
This also fixes the wrong investments being displayed in the map after
voting; only the investments on the current page were displayed in this
case while the index displayed all of them.
When accessing the valuation area, we were only displaying the
investments directly assigned to the current valuator, but we weren't
displaying the investments assigned to that valuator's group.
Using the `assigned_investments_ids` method, which takes the valuator
group into account, solves the issue.
We've also found an issue on our development machines: since we don't
have a unique index per `investment_id` and `valuator_id` in the
`budget_valuator_assignments` table, we've found duplicate records on
this table. When that happened, we were displaying the same investment
several times.
Since now we no longer join this table in the query returning the
investment, this issue is also solved, and we're adding a test for it.
We can now remove the call to the `distinct` method when calculating the
number of investments per heading.
This is consistent with the component for balloting stats. We're about
to change both components, and the changes are easier to follow if
they're similar.
We're also using consistent names in methods.
We're also moving the tests, but we're keeping one system test in order
to test the controller and the navigation to get to this page.
Note we're slightly changing the order of the methods in the component;
the order of the instance variables was `user_`, `vote_`, `vote_`,
`user_`, which was hard to follow.
We weren't allowing the `budget_id` parameter and then we were adding it
manually. We were also allowing other parameters that aren't used in the
valuation section.
So we're allowing budget and heading, which are the only parameter we're
offering filters for in the user interface. Note the `budget_id`
parameter doesn't seem to make sense because we're already inside a
`@budget.investments` statement, but the `budget_id` parameter is
required by the `scoped_filter` method.
Since we allow many active budgets at the same time, the
controller should now check the budget given by params.
Before this change the controller was checking the latest
published budget, ignoring the request parameter `budget_id`.
