Similar to what we did in PR "Avoid duplicate records in poll answers" 5539,
specifically in commit 503369166, we want to stop relying on the plain text
"answer" and start using "option_id" to avoid issues with counts across
translations and to add consistency to the poll_partial_results table.
Note that we also moved the `possible_answers` method from Poll::Question to
Poll::Question::Option, since the list of valid answers really comes from the
options of a question and not from the question itself. Tests were updated
to validate answers against the translations of the assigned option.
Additionally, we renamed lambda parameters in validations to improve clarity.
Note that we have the same code in the officing section.
Then we can use the same component.
Note also that we are removing the parts of the system specs that are now
covered by the component itself, and taking the chance to unify tests.
In these removals and unifications we take into account that there are
other specs which already cover user interaction in this section.
We removed the link to this page in commit 83e8d6035 because poll
questions don't really make sense without a poll.
However, this page also contained information about successful
proposals, which might be interesting so administrators don't have to
navigate to the public area in order to find and create questions based
on successful proposals.
So we're keeping the part about successful proposals and linking it from
the proposals part of the admin area.
Note we're using translation keys like `successful_proposals_tab`, which
don't make sense anymore, for the successful proposals. We're doing so
because we've already got translations for these keys and, if we renamed
them, we'd lose the existing translations and our translators would have
to add them again.
Also note we're changing one poll question test a little bit so we
create the question from a successful proposal using the new page. There
are other tests checking how to create a question from the
admin/proposals#show action and other tests checking what happens when
accessing a successful proposal in the admin section, so we don't lose
any test coverage by changing an existing test instead of adding a new
one.
Finally, note that we've removing the `search` method in poll question
because we no longer use it. This currently makes the
`author_visible_name` database column useless; we aren't removing it
right now because we don't want to risk a possible data loss in a patch
release (we're about to release version 2.3.1), but we might remove it
in the future.
Having a class named `Poll::Question::Answer` and another class named
`Poll::Answer` was so confusing that no developer working on the project
has ever been capable of remembering which is which for more than a few
seconds.
Furthermore, we're planning to add open answers to polls, and we might
add a reference from the `poll_answers` table to the
`poll_question_answers` table to property differentiate between open
answers and closed answers. Having yet another thing named answer would
be more than what our brains can handle (we know it because we did this
once in a prototype).
So we're renaming `Poll::Question::Answer` to `Poll::Question::Option`.
Hopefully that'll make it easier to remember. The name is also (more or
less) consistent with the `Legislation::QuestionOption` class, which is
similar.
We aren't changing the table or columns names for now in order to avoid
possible issues when upgrading (old code running with the new database
tables/columns after running the migrations but before deployment has
finished, for instance). We might do it in the future.
I've tried not to change the internationalization keys either so
existing translations would still be valid. However, since we have to
change the keys in `activerecord.yml` so methods like
`human_attribute_name` keep working, I'm also changing them in places
where similar keys were used (like `poll_question_answer` or
`poll/question/answer`).
Note that it isn't clear whether we should use `option` or
`question_option` in some cases. In order to keep things simple, we're
using `option` where we were using `answer` and `question_option` where
we were using `question_answer`.
Also note we're adding tests for the admin menu component, since at
first I forgot to change the `answers` reference there and all tests
passed.
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.
Adding, modifiying, and/or deleting questions for an already started
poll is far away from being democratic and can lead to unwanted side
effects like missing votes in the results or stats.
So, from now on, only modifiying questions will be possible only if
the poll has not started yet.
Links acting like buttons have a few disadvantages.
First, screen readers will announce them as "links". Screen reader users
usually associate links with "things that get you somewhere" and buttons
with "things that perform an action". So when something like "Delete,
link" is announced, they'll probably think this is a link which will
take them to another page where they can delete a record.
Furthermore, the URL of the link for the "destroy" action might be the
same as the URL for the "show" action (only one is accessed with a
DELETE request and the other one with a GET request). That means screen
readers could announce the link like "Delete, visited link", which is
very confusing.
They also won't work when opening links in a new tab, since opening
links in a new tab always results in a GET request to the URL the link
points to.
Finally, submit buttons work without JavaScript enabled, so they'll work
even if the JavaScript in the page hasn't loaded (for whatever reason).
For all these reasons (and probably many more), using a button to send
forms is IMHO superior to using links.
There's one disadvantage, though. Using `button_to` we create a <form>
tag, which means we'll generate invalid HTML if the table is inside
another form. If we run into this issue, we need to use `button_tag`
with a `form` attribute and then generate a form somewhere else inside
the HTML (with `content_for`).
Note we're using `button_to` with a block so it generates a <button>
tag. Using it in a different way the text would result in an <input />
tag, and input elements can't have pseudocontent added via CSS.
The following code could be a starting point to use the `button_tag`
with a `form` attribute. One advantage of this approach is screen
readers wouldn't announce "leaving form" while navigating through these
buttons. However, it doesn't work in Internet Explorer.
```
ERB:
<% content_for(:hidden_content, form_tag(path, form_options) {}) %>
<%= button_tag text, button_options %>
Ruby:
def form_id
path.gsub("/", "_")
end
def form_options
{ id: form_id, method: options[:method] }
end
def button_options
html_options.except(:method).merge(form: form_id)
end
Layout:
<%= content_for :hidden_content %> # Right before the `</body>`
```
As mentioned in commit 5214d89c8, using a `<select>` tag which
automatically submits a form on change has a few accessibility issues,
particularly for keyboard users who might accidentally submit the form
while browsing the options.
So we're adding a submit button and removing the "submit on change"
behavior.
Note that, while `<select>` tags have their own usability issues,
alternatives in this case are not obvious because the number of existing
polls could be very low (zero, for instance) or very high (dozens, if
the application has been used for years).
I thought of using a `<datalist>` tag with a regular text input. The
problem here is we don't want to send the name of the poll to the server
(as we would with a `<datalist>` tag); we want to send the ID of the
poll.
Maybe we could add an automplete field instead, providing a similar
funcionality. However, for now we're keeping it simple. This poll
questions page isn't even accessible through the admin menu since commit
83e8d603, so right now anything we change here will be pretty much
useless.
This way we can remove duplication and simplify the code in the view.
Note we're not using the "within" method in the tests to access a row,
because it doesn't seem to work in components tests when passing the
`text:` option.
