In theory it's possible to add a `host` parameter to a URL, and we could
end up redirecting to that host if we just redirect using query
parameters.
Generating the path using `url_for` with `only_path` solves the issue.
Note in the tests I'm using the `get` method because the `patch` method
wouldn't send query parameters. This doesn't mean the action can be
accessed through GET requests, since controller tests don't check route
verbs. Using feature specs doesn't seem to work because `controller` and
`host` parameters are filtered automatically in feature specs.
Also note I'm not testing every hidden/moderation controller because
they basically use the same code.
These actions are never called with query parameters in our application,
so there's no need to use these parameters in a redirect.
Note in the test I'm using the `get` method because the `patch` method
wouldn't send query parameters. This doesn't mean the action can be
accessed through GET requests, since controller tests don't check route
verbs.
Creating more than 25 records isn't necessary to test pagination; we can
stub the number of records per page in a test.
On my machine we save about one second per test with these changes.
The link to show stats for these polls is nowhere to be seen in the
application, and these stats are included in the budget stats, so it
makes sense to restrict access to them.
When defining abilities, scopes cover more cases because they can be
used to check permissions for a record and to filter a collection. Ruby
blocks can only be used to check permissions for a record.
Note the `Budget::Phase.kind_or_later` name sounds funny, probably
because we use the word "phase" for both an an attribute in the budgets
table and an object associated with the budget, and so naming methods
for a budget phase is a bit tricky.
The scopes `created_by_admin` and `public_polls` were very similar. I'm
using `created_by_admin` because `Poll.public_polls` feels redundant,
and the reason for that name is we should not name the scope `public`
because `public` is a ruby access modifier.
We were checking for `expired?` and `results_enabled?` in views and
helpers, when we've already defined a rule for accessing stats and
results for a poll.
This way we also fix a bug when stats were enabled but the poll wasn't
finished. In this scenario, the link pointed to the stats page, but when
clicking it we'd get a "you don't have permission" message.
Now the link doesn't point to the stats page anymore.
There's no reason to allow administrators to check stats and results for
a poll when it isn't finished or when results and stats are not enabled.
Now admins have the same permissions as everyone else.
* Add custom message for inclusion validation to include the allowed values.
* Force user to choose document_type from select lik the one shown at verification form.
* Convert stored document_type to a human readable text
This is a hack: we're making the textarea have the same size as CKEditor
so when it's replaced the page won't jump.
A very similar hack was removed in commit e844b0b2. Back then I thought
this was a small issue we could live with, but the user experience turns
out to be a bit annoying, and it makes tests fail sometimes because
Capybara is trying to click something when the page jumps, and so it
misses the click.
This feature wasn't properly tested nor reviewed, and after reviewing
several pull requests with a similar status and considering this pull
request is related to the public area of the web, we've decided to
remove it before releasing version 1.1.
This commit reverts commit 4f50e67a.
Although we weren't showing links in the views to execute certain
actions, forms could be still sent using a PUT/PATCH pull request to the
controller actions.
The new CSV report was more configurable and could work on proposals,
processes and comments. However, it had several issues.
In the public area, by default it generated a blank file.
In the admin section, the report was hard to configure and it generated
a file with less quality than the old system.
So until we improve this system, we're bringing back the old investment
CSV exporter.
This commit reverts most of commit 9d1ca3bf.
We were adding the condition to show the form in the view. However, that
doesn't prevent users from sending a POST/PUT request to the controller
action.
We could add the condition to the controller as well, but since the
`valuate` permission is only used in one place, it's easier to restrict
that permission to valuators who can edit the dossier.
Don't use <label> tags for things that are not labels, add a proper
<title> for the page, add a back link, remove an unnecessary
`inline-block` style for a header, localize dates and field names, ...
The interface could be further improve: proper diffs for long texts,
better separation between fields, ...
The name of the changed field is translated, values are truncated so
descriptions with thousands of character would make this table huge and
impossible to read, dates are localized, and values like arrays and
booleans are displayed properly.
Our manual implementation had a few issues. In particular, it didn't
track changes related to associations, which became more of an issue
when we made investments translatable.
Using audited gives us more functionality while at the same time
simplifies our code. However, it adds one more external dependency to
our project.
The reason for choosing audited over paper trail is audited seems to
make it easier to handle associations.
If we validate the presence of the old value and the new value, changes
in optional fields will not be stored if either the old value or the new
value are blank.
The current tracking section had a few issues:
* When browsing as an admin, this section becomes useless since no
investments are shown
* Browsing investments in the admin section, you're suddenly redirected
to the tracking section, making navigation confusing
* One test related to the officing dashboard failed due to these changes
and had been commented
* Several views and controller methods were copied from other sections,
leading to duplication and making the code harder to maintain
* Tracking routes were defined for proposals and legislation processes,
but in the tracking section only investments were shown
* Probably many more things, since these issues were detected after only
an hour reviewing and testing the code
So we're removing this untested section before releasing version 1.1. We
might add it back afterwards.
Tags and help links can be edited, but aren't used anywhere. Since we
don't know what the intended behavior was, I'm removing them for now.
My best guess is tags were supposed to be used so investments for a
budget can only be assigned tags present in the budget. Achieving that
behavior wouldn't be a trivial task.
We were ordering one group of tags alphabetically and then adding
another group of tags which wasn't ordered alphabetically, which didn't
make much sense.
Since budgets now have milestone tags, the name of this method was
confusing and will conflict with the name generated by acts_as_taggable.
Note the new name could be improved too.
We were manually doing the same thing, generating inconsistent results,
since the method `valuation_tag_list` was using the `valuation` context,
when actually the expected behavior would be to use the `valuation_tag`
context.
