Avoid displaying the price in admin budget headings section
and avoid fill the field 'price' in admin budget headings form
when the budget has been checked with hide_money field.
This way we fix a bug we mentioned in commit 930bb753c which caused
links to documents to be broken when editing their title because the
title was used to generate the URL of the document.
Note we're still using Paperclip to render cached attachments because
this is the only case where we store files with just Paperclip and not
Active Storage.
With Active Storage, we render attachments just like any other resource,
using `polymorphic_path`. Paperclip included the `url` method in the
model; since the model doesn't have access to the request parameters
(like the host), this was inconvenient because it wasn't possible to
generate absolute URLs with Paperclip.
In order to simplify the code and make it similar to the way we used
Paperclip, we're adding a `variant` method accepting the name of a
variant and returning the variant.
Defining a behavior on hover means making it different for people using
a keyboard or a touchscreen (most of the population, nowadays).
In this case, we had an accessibility issue where the message wouldn't
disappear once it appeared. That meant that, after tabbing through all
the links and buttons in, for instance, the debates index, the page
would be filled with "participation not allowed" messages, and in order
to see the information about how many people have voted, reloading the
page was required.
For touchscreen users the behavior was similar to what we get on hover,
although we've found some inconsistencies when trying to support several
elements on the same page.
We think in proposals it makes sense to hide the "support" button when
users click on it, and the same applies to the buttonsto support and
vote investment projects. However, we aren't hiding the buttons to
agree/disagree with a debate in order to keep the information about the
current number of people agreeing and disagreeing visible.
Note we're removing some support spec methods because after these
changes the duplication isn't as obvious as it was in the past.
We were using the same logic six times regarding when we should show a
"participation not allowed" message. Since we're going to change the
current behavior, we're unifying the logic in one place so the changes
will be easier.
Hovering over the votes showed a "participation not allowed" message
which was annoying when scrolling with the browser or simply moving the
mouse around the page. Furthermore, it hid the information about the
number of votes, links to show/collapse replies, ...
We're planning to change the behavior of all the "participation not
allowed" messages in order to show them on click instead of showing them
on hover (just like it's done on touchscreens). In the case of comments,
supports, however, there's very limited space in the part showing the
number of supports for comments, so adding this message without breaking
the layout is challenging.
So, for now, we're simply redirecting unauthenticated users to the login
page. If find an easy way to implement a better user interface in the
future to display the "participation not allowed" message, we might
change this behaviour.
Note we're using the in-favor HTML class instead of the in_favor class
so we're consistent with our conventions for HTML classes and because we
use the in-favor class in similar places.
Also note the styles of the legislation process annotations/comments
buttons is now similar to the styles in the other sections. Previously,
the colors didn't have enough contrast and there was a very strange
margin between the "thumbs up" icon and the number of people agreeing
(that margin wasn't present between the "thumbs down" icon and the
number of people disagreeing).
As mentioned in commits 5311daadf and bb958daf0, using links combined
with JavaScript to generate POST requests to the server has a few
issues.
We're also improving the keyboard access. Previously, the links were
focusable and clickable with the keyboard. Now we're disabling the
buttons when voting isn't allowed.
Since these elements can no longer be focused, we're adding an element
with `tabindex="0"` so the "participation not allowed" message is shown,
like we do in most places.
Note we're slightly changing one test because now when hovering over the
button on Chrome, the "participation not allowed" text isn't shown; it's
only shown when hovering on the parts of the `div.ballot` element
outside the button. Since we're already rewriting the behavior of the
"participation not allowed" text in a different pull request, we aren't
going to fix this behavior.
Using the `flex-with-gap` mixin we avoid the left margin in the second
element when the screen space isn't wide enough to show both buttons.
Setting the margins with CSS also allows as to simplify the view and
makes it easier to customize styles.
Having buttons (previously links) with the text "I agree 75%" is
confusing; people might believe they're saying they only partially agree
with the content. Besides, the results percentages is a different piece
of information which shouldn't be related to whether one person
agrees/disagrees with the content.
This problem might be solved for people using screen readers since we
added the aria-label attribute. However, for sighted keyboard users, the
percentage was being outlined on focus as part of the button, which
might be confusing.
Note we're using the `budgets.investments.investment.add_label` and
`budgets.ballots.show.remove_label` internationalization keys so they're
consistent with the `budgets.investments.investment.add` and
`budgets.ballots.show.remove` keys which were already present. We aren't
unifying these keys in order to keep existing translations.
This way blind screen reader users will know which proposal they're
supporting. In a list of proposals, context might not be clear when a
link saying "Support" or "Support this proposal" is announced, but a
link saying "Support Create a monthly transport ticket" is less
ambiguous.
Just like we did with investments in commit de436e33a, we're keeping the
title attribute because when visiting a proposal page, the connection
between the "Support" link and the proposal is not as clear as it is in
the proposals index page, so it might not be clear what you're
supporting.
We were using the same code to render links to agree and disagree, so we
can extract a new component for this code.
We're also adding component tests to make it easier to test whether
we're breaking anything while refactoring, although the code is probably
already covered by system tests.
Since the votes mixin was only used in one place, we're removing it and
moving most of its code to a new CSS file for the shared component.
Very similar code is present in the `votes.js` file. Since the only
elements with the `js-participation-not-allowed` class also matched the
`div.supports div.participation-not-allowed` selector, for these
elements the events were executed twice.
So we can get rid of the `js-participation` class alongside all the
JavaScript code referencing it.
When there isn't a current user, the links can't be clicked, so there's
no real point in them being links.
When there's a current user and they cannot vote (for example, an
organization), having a link/button to an action they can't perform
isn't that useful IMHO. They get a message saying they aren't allowed to
vote but the message doesn't say why. However, in this case, many people
might try to click/touch the link/button and will wonder why nothing
happens, so we'll revisit this issue when we change the way we display
the "participation not allowed" messages.
Now the behavior is more similar to the one we get when voting
proposals/debates.
This way we can make the view code a bit easier to read.
We're also changing the order of the conditions a little bit so we only
check for the presence of a current user once.
To make sure we aren't breaking anything with these changes, we're
adding some tests. We're also replacing one system test checking content
with a component test, since component tests are much faster.
The action and the views were almost identical, with the supports
progress and the HTML classes of the success message element being the
only exceptions; we can use CSS for the styles instead.
Just like we did in commit 0214184b2d for investments, we're removing
some possible optimizations (we don't have any benchmarks proving they
affect performance at all) in order to simplify the code.
The investement votes component `delegate` code was accidentally left
but isn't used since commit 0214184b2, so we're removing it now that
we're removing the `voted_for?` helper method.
The user can access this page without being logged in.
We identify the user through the "subscriptions_token" parameter and
show a list of the notifications that can be enable/disable.
We will return a 404 error in case someone accesses the page with a
non-existent token.
We also control the case that some anonymous user tries to access the
page without any token, by returning the CanCan::AccessDenied exception.
It was a bit confusing to press the "hide" button and then see the user
listed as "blocked". Some moderators might think they accidentally
pressed the wrong button.
In the moderation section there's no clear indicator as to what the
"Hide" and "Block" buttons do and the difference between them.
Since we're using confirmation dialogs in all moderation actions except
these ones, we're adding them here as well, so the difference will
appear in the dialog.
This isn't a very good solution, though, since the confirmation dialog
comes after clicking the button and users have already been wondering
whether clicking that button will be the right choice. A better solution
would be making the purpose clear before the button is clicked, although
that's something we don't do anywhere in the admin/moderation sections.
This is useful for people using screen readers, since the character used
as a separator won't be read aloud.
Since many screen readers also read content generated via CSS
pseudoelements, we aren't using `content: "|";` or similar but using
elements with a very small width instead.
We're continuing to replace links with buttons, for the reasons
explained in commit 5311daadf.
Since we're using the admin action component, we can also simplify the
logic handling the confirmation message.
In order to avoid duplicate IDs when generating buttons to block the
same author more than once in a page, we're including the record dom_id
in the ID of the button to block an author.
The `hide` action was calling the `block` method while the `soft_block`
action was calling the `hide` method.
Combined with the fact that we also have a `block` permission which is
used in `ModerateActions` the logic was hard to follow.
Note that in proposal notifications we're writing the call to
render the component in the same line as the <div class="reply">
definition in order to be able to use the `:empty` selector when the
component renders nothing. No browser matches whitespace with the
`:empty` selector, so we can't add newline characters inside the tag. A
more elegant solution would be extracting the proposal notification
actions to a component and only rendering it if the moderation actions
component is rendered.
We're starting to use buttons instead of submit inputs where possible
because buttons are easier to style; for instance, buttons allow
pseudoelements. Rails has also changed the `button_to` helper to always
generate a <button> tag in recent versions [1].
In this case, buttons get on better with flex layouts, since by default
some browsers display submit inputs with `white-space: pre`, meaning
some of the text isn't visible on small screens.
[1] See pull request 40747 in https://github.com/rails/rails
Placeholders are hard to read due to their low contrast, and users might
want to read them after they're already gone, and so they cause both
accessibility and usability issues.
There's no real point in linking to a page offering users to choose a
heading when there's only one heading to choose.
So we're linking to the investments index instead.
