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).
We applied the Capybara/SpecificMatcher in commit f52a86b46. However,
this rule doesn't convert methods finding <a> tags to methods finding
links because <a> tags only count as links when they've got the `href`
attribute. For instance, in the `xss_spec.rb` file we check what happens
when clicking on an anchor tag because we're testing that the `href`
attribute has been removed and so we can't use `click_link`.
So, basically, we can't enable a rule to automatically detect when we're
using `have_css` instead of `have_link`, but we should still do it
because `have_link` adds an extra check which affects accessibility
since it makes sure the tag has the `href` attribute and so it's
recognizable as a link by screen readers.
This rule was added in rubocop 1.37.0. It's particularly useful in the
background image spec, since now there's one less backslash to decipher
when reading the code :).
This rule was added in rubocop-rspec 2.12.0, and we were already
following it most of the time.
However, the rule isn't working correctly in some cases, such as input
selectors, so we aren't enabling it.
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 already using it in most places.
Note that enabling this rule means we've got to change a few lines in
order to follow the LineEndStringConcatenationIndentation rule. In the
link list tests, the easiest way to do so was to use heredoc instead,
which IMHO improves readability over the previous version.
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.
In the `i18n_translation` initializer, we're overwriting the `t` helper
so calling it uses custom translations if they're available.
However, ViewComponent doesn't use the `t` helper but implements its own
`t` method. So, when calling the `t` method in a component, we weren't
using our implementation of the `t` helper, and so we weren't loading
custom translations.
Using the `t` helper in components solves the issue.
There was a test where we were directly testing a method in a component,
and that method uses the `t` helper. This caused an error when running
the test:
ViewComponent::Base::ViewContextCalledBeforeRenderError:
`#helpers` can't be used during initialization, as it depends on the
view context that only exists once a ViewComponent is passed to the
Rails render pipeline.
Using `render_inline` in the test and testing the generated HTML, as
recommended in the ViewComponent documentation, solves the issue.
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>
The `map` class is applied to the map element by LeafletJS; using it in
the container led to hacks like adding an `inline` class to fix the fact
that the container was using the `height` rule of the `.map` elements.
Even though we don't add styles for them, I'm adding the `budgets-map`
and `budget-investments-map` HTML classes so these elements can still be
easily selected with CSS and JavaScript.
It has been detected that for the :pt-BR, :zh-CN and :zh-TW locales,
the translate button was being displayed, but when requesting the
translation, the remote translation validation failed due to:
'''
validates :locale, inclusion: { in: ->(_) {
RemoteTranslations::Microsoft::AvailableLocales.available_locales }}
'''
That available_locales method did not contemplate these 3 languages
in the format used by the application.
To solve this problem the api response is mapped to return all
locales in the format expected by the application.
Add remote translation model test to ensure that a remote translation
is valid when its locale is pt-BR.
Co-Authored-By: Javi Martín <35156+javierm@users.noreply.github.com>
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.
To get the heading where a user voted, we were relying on the
`balloted_heading_id` field.
Our guess is this was done so the total number of users is the same as
the sum of users who voted on a heading. That is, if 2000 people voted
just on the "All city" heading, 1000 voted just on the "North district"
heading, and 500 people voted on both, instead of showing "3500 people
voted in total, 2500 voted in all city, 1500 voted in north district",
we show something like "3500 people voted in total, 2250 voted in all
city, and 1250 voted in north district".
However, this approach has some disadvantages.
The first disadvantage is, the stats aren't correct. In the case above,
2500 voted on the "All city heading", so the statistics for this heading
don't show reality.
The second one is we weren't considering the last heading where users
voted inside the budget being displayed, but the last heading where
users voted, period. That means that, if all the people above voted on a
later budget, the stats for the budget above would become "3500 people
voted in total, 0 voted in all city, and 0 voted in north district".
That also means we were including headings from previous budgets in the
statistics for more recent budgets when people hadn't voted on the
recent ones.
So we're removing the `balloted_heading_id` since its data is lost once
people vote on a new budget. And, in order to show the right stats and
simplify the code, we're no longer trying to add votes just to one
heading when users vote on several headings.
Co-Authored-By: Julian Nicolas Herrero <microweb10@gmail.com>
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.
Since the change on commit cbbe188d6 we added a Poll.current.any?
condition to show the officing link on admin menu to officers.
That condition doesn't have much sense since Poll results only can be
added after a poll has ended, and there may be only one active poll.
This way we reduce the number of system tests or, in some cases,
requests during system tests, making the tests faster.
We're still testing the interaction with the menu when users have the
right permissions.
We weren't showing the year when a page was created/updated, and we
were displaying the created date instead of the updated one.
Co-Authored-By: Diego Calvo <diego.calvo@enreda.coop>
In the management section, `current_user` is the user impersonated by
the manager. We were deciding whether to show the admin menu depending
on the privileges of the current user, but this menu should be shown
according to the privileges of the manager who is impersonating the
user.
We're doing a similar (very subtle) change in the login items. We were
rendering the `login_items` partial passing `current_user: user`.
However, inside this method, we were using `user_signed_in`, which
ignored the `current_user` we were passing. The result was always the
same expect in tests where we manually sign in users, but we're changing
it anyway in order to reduce confusion.
This way it's easier to refactor it.
Note we're using `with_request_url` in the tests because the component
renders the locale switcher, which needs a URL in order to work. This
doesn't affect whether we're in the management section or not.
