Note that the `budget` parameter was added to the `delete_path` method
so it works in the tests; on production, it worked because this
component is only rendered on pages which already have the `budget`
parameter.
Co-authored-by: Javi Martín <javim@elretirao.net>
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`.
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
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.
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>
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.
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>
IMHO selecting in how many headings it's possible to support investments
isn't necessary when there's only one option to choose from. It's
obvious that if there's only one heading, it will be impossible to
select investments from more than one heading.
We're not adding the rule because it would apply the current line length
rule of 110 characters per line. We still haven't decided whether we'll
keep that rule or make lines shorter so they're easier to read,
particularly when vertically splitting the editor window.
So, for now, I'm applying the rule to lines which are about 90
characters long.
Since we're going to add an action to remove supports, having a separate
controller makes things easier.
Note there was a strange piece of code which assumed users were not
verified if they couldn't vote investments. Now the code is also
strange, since it assumes users are not verified if they can't create
votes. We might need to revisit these conditions if our logic changes in
the future.
In the form of creating a new investment was hiding the name of the
group if it had only one heading, but could be confusing to users if
there are, for example, five different groups of one heading.
The solution:
- If the budget has one group and one heading, the heading selector is
hidden.
- If the budget has one group and more than one heading, the group name
is hidden.
- If the budget has more than one group, the group name appears
regardless of the number of headings.
Note we're making the validation rule dynamic so it's affected by the
way we stub the constant in the tests to emulate data created in old
applications.
Co-Authored-By: Javi Martín <javim@elretirao.net>
Previously the draft mode was a phase of the PB, but that had some
limitations.
Now the phase drafting disappears and therefore the PB can have the
status published or not published (in draft mode).
That will give more flexibility in order to navigate through the
different phases and see how it looks for administrators before
publishing the PB and everybody can see.
By default, the PB is always created in draft mode, so it gives you
the flexibility to adjust and modify anything before publishing it.
This way we can simplify the code and don't have to rely on `.try`
statements which are confusing and so we don't allow them in the
`Rails/SafeNavigation` Rubocop rule.
Ruby 2.6 introduces `Enumerable#filter` as an alias to
`Enumerable#select`, and so our Filterable.filter method will not work
with Ruby 2.6.
So we're renaming the method to `filter_by`, which is similar to
`find_by`. We could also change the `filter` method so if a block is
given it delegates to `Enumerable#filter`, the same way ActiveRecord
handles the `select` method, but IMHO this is easier to follow.
We were setting it to 0, and so screen reader users might be confused by
it.
The easiest way to reuse the code and using it for both this attribute
and the width of the progress bar is to move this method to the voting
style, just like the other methods used in this view.
Note the progressbar ARIA role might not be right, since this isn't a
task which is "progressing", but an indicator of the amount spent and
amount available, which is exactly what the <meter> HTML5 tag was
designed for.
We might use a <meter> tag in the future. For now, I'm leaving it as it
is because I'm not certain about how well <meter> is supported in
accessibility tools, and because it's definitely not supported in
Internet Explorer 11, which we haven't officially dropped support for.
