The method `tag_list_on` doesn't add an `ORDER_BY` clause to the SQL
query it generates, and so results may come in any order.
However, in the tests we were assuming the tags were ordered by ID in
descending order. Since that isn't always the case, the tests were
failing sometimes.
Ordering the tags alphabetically solves the problem. We could also use
the same order admins used when adding the tags:
```
@process.customs.order("taggings.created_at").pluck(:name).join(", ")
```
However, I'm not sure it improves the user experience, and it makes the
code more complicated.
benefit to administratos.
This filter was added in commit 4285ba4b, it was changed in commit
002d8688, and most of the code from the original commit has disappeared
without a trace (maybe due to a merge conflict?).
This filter could actually be useful if we started using it when users
click on a tag. Since we don't, I'm removing it. We might add it back if
we decide to actually use it.
In the admin menu, some links take you to a section, and some links open
a submenu with more links.
When we disable the "multi-open" property of the menu and the active
element is a link which takes you to a section, Foundation will hide it
whenever we click a link which opens a submenu.
The easiest solution is to enable "multi-open" property.
In most of the rest of the application the buttons are shown in this
way, we do this little adjustment to improve the consistency with the
rest of the application
Since now it's possible to edit the budget investment during the
accepting phase, it does not really make sense to show the button to
just remove the image when the investment project can be fully edited,
and the image can be removed from the editing form.
We've added the option to remove an image from an investment. However,
removing the image did not expire the cache, so the rendered HTML still
included an `<image>` tag (which wouldn't show an image, since it had
been deleded) and a link to remove an image.
We were using `overflow: scroll` as a workaround with a problem we had
with the equalizer. But now we never need an extra vertical scroll bar,
and we only need an extra horizontal scroll bar on small screens.
Since the dashboard was using the class `admin-content` as well, we need
to apply to the dashboard the same changes we've done in the admin
section. I've extracted them into a mixin.
In some situations where JavaScript makes content disappear, the height
of the element calculated by foundation's equalizer isn't recalculated,
leaving blank space at the bottom of the page. I've seen cases where a
blank vertical space of 2000 pixels is on the page.
Using flexbox solves the problem, since CSS takes care of everything.
While the browser gem is great, we don't need it in this case for such a
simple usage.
There are a few really small differences between this code and the old
one: matching `/MSIE/` will return true for Opera 12 and false for
certain versions of IE11. Since we're only rendering a comment for IE8
and below, we don't care about IE11, and Opera 12 is six years old and
its users won't be affected by the comment.
Note we're still using the browser gem because ahoy_matey depends on it,
but now it's an indirect dependency.
Using `sanitize` we make sure the `href` attribute does not execute any
dangerous code. The possibility of a banner pointing to a dangerous URL
was very reduced, though, since only administrators can edit this
attribute.
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.
* 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 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.
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.
