We were rendering one label and many textarea fields for that label.
This meant that, when switching to a different language, the label
wasn't correctly associated with the textarea.
So we're now rendering one label for each textarea. We could use
`aria-label` or `aria-labelledby` instead, but using a label offers some
advantages like the fact that clicking on the label makes the textarea
take the focus.
The absence of labels in these controls made them hard to use,
particularly for people who use screen readers.
Note we're removing the "Choose language" prompt, since we always
automatically choose a language and not choosing a language doesn't
really make sense. The only scenario where the prompt was used took
place when all languages had been removed but, in that case, the "Choose
language" prompt was misleading because there were no languages to
choose from.
As mentioned in commit 5311daadf, there are several reasons to use
buttons in these situations. And, as mentioned in the previous commits,
using buttons instead of links for actions requiring confirmation will
help us test for accessibility issues.
This way it'll be easier for people using screen readers to know which
link/button they're about to click.
Note that, at least for now, we aren't reusing the code en
`Admin::ActionComponent`. We might do so in the future if we implement
similar code in more parts of the public area.
Note that, since the button now generates a `form` tag, we need to
adjust the styles of this section.
As mentioned in commit 5311daadf, there are several reasons to use
buttons in these situations. And, as mentioned in the previous commits,
using buttons instead of links for actions requiring confirmation will
help us test for accessibility issues.
Note we're simplifying the `table .button` margin rules because the
`.button` class already defines `0` for all its margins except the
bottom margin. Otherwise, the margins defined by the `flex-with-gap`
mixin would be overwritten by the margins defined in the `table .button`
class.
While testing for accessibility issues (in a development branch), we're
removing Turbolinks and monkey-patching the behavior of the `click_link`
method to check the page for accessibility issues after each request.
However, we were getting false positives when clicking links that act
like buttons.
So, for the reasons mentioned in commit 5311daadf, we're replacing the
link to delete a document with a button.
Just like we did in commits like f2e32b44b, a8537f7e1 and be9fc2265,
we're replacing a buggy JavaScript solution with one using just CSS.
Besides, we've had a failure in our test suite caused by an image not
being displayed on the page, with the message:
```
Failures:
1) Executions Images renders last milestone's image if investment has multiple milestones
with images associated
Failure/Error: expect(page).to have_css("img[alt='Second image']")
expected to find visible css "img[alt='Second image']" but there were no matches.
Also found "", which matched the selector but not all filters.
# ./spec/system/budgets/executions_spec.rb:135:in `block (3 levels) in <top (required)>'
```
The text "matched the selector but not all filters" means that the
element was present on the page but wasn't visible. One possible cause
is that the equalizer was adjusting the height of the element containing
the image before the image was loaded.
Note that, after these changes, all investments on the same row will
have the same height but, unlike with Foundation's equalizer,
investments on different rows might have different heights.
Note that we're changing the component so it uses `polymorphic_path`;
that way we don't have to pass the `@budget` variable to the component.
We could also use `budget_investment_path investment.budget, investment`
instead.
We only want to render the account link and login items in the header.
And we want only render the Multitenancy and Administrators sections in
the admin sidebar.
We include the administrators management so it's possible to give
permissions to other users to manage tenants.
In order to restrict access to other sections by typing the URL or
following a link, we're only enabling the rest of the routes when we
aren't in the multitenancy management mode.
Using a checkbox wasn't very intuitive because checkboxes are
checked/unchecked when clicked on even if there's an error in the
request. Usually, when checkboxes appear on a form, they don't send any
information to the server unless we click a button to send the form.
So we're using a switch instead of a checkbox, like we did to
enable/disable phases in commit 46d8bc4f0.
Note that, since we've got two switches that match the default
`dom_id(record) .toggle-switch` selector, we need to find a way to
differentiate them. We're adding the `form_class` option for that.
Also note that we're now using a separate action and removing the
JavaScript in the `update` action which assumed that AJAX requests to
this action were always related to updating the `visible_to_valuators`
attribute.
This is consistent to what we usually do. Also, we're applying the same
criteria mentioned in commit 72704d776:
> We're also making these actions idempotent, so sending many requests
> to the same action will get the same result, which wasn't the case
> with the `toggle` action. Although it's a low probability case, the
> `toggle` action could result in [selecting an investment] when trying
> to [deselect] it if someone else has [deselected it] it between the
> time the page loaded and the time the admin clicked on the
> "[Selected]" button.
Just like it happened with proposals, the button to select/deselect an
investment wasn't very intuitive; for example, it wasn't obvious that
pressing a button saying "selected" would deselect the investment.
So we're using a switch control, like we do to enable/disable features
since commit fabe97e50.
Note that we're making the text of the switch smaller than in other
places because the text in the investments table it is also smaller
(we're using `font-size: inherit` for that purpose). That made the
button look weird because we were using rems instead of ems for the
width of the button, so we're adjusting that as well.
Also note we're changing the width of the switch to `6em` instead of
`6.25em` (which would be 100px if 1em is 16px). We're doing so because
we used 100 for the minimum width because it's a round number, so
now we're using another round number.
We were checking it in the view, meaning that it was possible to toggle
the selection by sending a custom request even when the investment
wasn't feasible.
This way it'll be easier to change the link/button used to toggle the
selection.
Note that the conditions in the view seem to be different because we no
longer include the `selected?` condition when rendering the link/button.
However, an investment can only be selected if it's feasible and its
valuation is finished, so writing something like this would have been
redundant:
```ruby
can?(:toggle_selection, investment) &&
(selected? || investment.feasible? && investment.valuation_finished?)
```
The reason why the previous code was using the `selected?` condition was
to check whether to render the link/button to select or to deselect an
investment. We're now doing that in the Ruby part of the component.
Since we define the `data-field` element, we can style each element
individually with CSS.
I'm not sure whether these styles make sense, though. For instance, why
is "Supports" aligned to the center, since it's a number? For now, we're
leaving it as it was.
This way we'll be able to simplify it a little bit.
Note that the original partial didn't include the whole row and only
the cells. Since, most of the time, we include the whole row in
partials, we're slightly modifying the component.
This is consistent to what we usually do. Also, we're applying the same
criteria mentioned in commit 72704d776:
> We're also making these actions idempotent, so sending many requests
> to the same action will get the same result, which wasn't the case
> with the `toggle` action. Although it's a low probability case, the
> `toggle` action could result in [selecting a proposal] when trying to
> [deselect] it if someone else has [deselected it] it between the time
> the page loaded and the time the admin clicked on the "[Selected]"
> button.
The button to select/deselect a proposal wasn't very intuitive; for
example, it wasn't obvious that pressing a button saying "selected"
would deselect the proposal.
So we're using a switch control, like we do to enable/disable features
since commit fabe97e50.
In rubocop-rails 2.26.0, the Rails/CompactBlank rule was modified to handle
cases where select(&:present?) is used. After identifying three occurrences
in our code, we've decided to apply this rule as it encourages the use of the
more efficient and clearer method, compact_blank.
By using compact_blank, we improve code clarity and performance, as this method performs the same operation but in a more optimized way.
