We were using helper methods inside the model; we might as well include
them in the model and use them from anywhere else.
Note we're using a different logic for images and documents methods.
That's because for images the logic was defined in the helper methods,
but for documents the logic is defined in the Documentable concern. In
the past, different documentable classes allowed different content
types, while imageable classes have always allowed the same content
types.
I'm not sure which method is better; for now, I'm leaving it the way it
was (except for the fact that we're removing the helper methods).
Including them might lead to conflicts since two methods might have the
same name. For example, we're getting some exceptions when taking
screenshots of a failing test, because the method `image_path` from
`ActionView::Helpers::AssetUrlHelper` has the same name as a method used
to save the screenshot.
Besides, we were including all helpers in places were only the `dom_id`
method is used, and in other places where no helper methods were used at
all. So we can just invoke `ActionView::RecordIdentifier.dom_id`
directly.
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
Having exceptions is better than having silent bugs.
There are a few methods I've kept the same way they were.
The `RelatedContentScore#score_with_opposite` method is a bit peculiar:
it creates scores for both itself and the opposite related content,
which means the opposite related content will try to create the same
scores as well.
We've already got a test to check `Budget::Ballot#add_investment` when
creating a line fails ("Edge case voting a non-elegible investment").
Finally, the method `User#send_oauth_confirmation_instructions` doesn't
update the record when the email address isn't already present, leading
to the test "Try to register with the email of an already existing user,
when an unconfirmed email was provided by oauth" fo fail if we raise an
exception for an invalid user. That's because updating a user's email
doesn't update the database automatically, but instead a confirmation
email is sent.
There are also a few false positives for classes which don't have bang
methods (like the GraphQL classes) or destroying attachments.
For these reasons, I'm adding the rule with a "Refactor" severity,
meaning it's a rule we can break if necessary.
