Instead of adding the padding to each individual element inside the
container, why not adding padding to the container itself? The answer is
"because we want the background of the children elements to take the
width of the whole screen". But this generates either HTML cluttered
with elements to add padding or repetitive padding definitions in the
CSS.
So now we only define the padding once, and when an element requires a
full width background or border, we use the `full-width-background`
mixin.
In this case the code is a bit more complex because the header is also
used in the dashboard and admin layouts:
* In the public layout, the body has a margin, so we include the mixin
to take margin into account
* In the dashboard layout, the header itself has a margin, so we include
the same mixin
* In the admin layout, the headet doesn't have a margin but gets the
whole width, so in this case we include the mixin which dosen't take
the margin into account
In the future, the idea is to apply this principle to the <body>
element and remove the `@include grid-column-gutter` in the CSS as well
as the `small-12 column` classes in the HTML.
Note we use the `calc()` function inside the mixin instead of using it
in the `$full-width-margin` variable. That way we avoid nested `calc()`
operations, which don't work in Internet Explorer.
Also note we're using `flex-grow: 1` to make one element appear on the
left of the screen and the other one on the right. It would be easier to
use `justify-content: space-between` (which is actually the default for
the top-bar element). However, there's a bug in Internet Explorer and
old versions of Firefox; they include the absolutely-positioned
`::before` element we use to set the full width background when
calculating where to position the elements. The bug was fixed in Firefox
52 (released in 2017).
Finally, we're removing the padding from our logo. In order to allow
logos like the new one and at the same time provide backwards
compatibility to logos in existing CONSUL installations, we're relaxing
the validation rule for the logo width.
So now we'll be able to add them to other sections.
We're also adding a `dependent: :destroy` relation to models having
cards since it doesn't make sense to have cards around when their page
has been destroyed.
Not doing so has a few gotchas when working with relations, particularly
with records which are not stored in the database.
I'm excluding the related content file because it's got a very peculiar
relationship with itself: the `has_one :opposite_related_content` has no
inverse; the relation itself is its inverse. It's a false positive since
the inverse condition is true:
```
content.opposite_related_content.opposite_related_content.object_id ==
content.object_id
```
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
This way we guarantee there will be at least one translation for a model
and we keep compatibility with the rest of the application, which
ideally isn't aware of globalize.
