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.
As far as possible I think the code is clearer if we use CRUD actions
rather than custom actions. This will make it easier to add the action
to remove votes in the next commit.
Note that we are adding this line as we need to validate it that a vote
can be created on a comment by the current user:
```authorize! :create, Vote.new(voter: current_user, votable: @comment)```
We have done it this way and not with the following code as you might
expect, as this way two votes are created instead of one.
```load_and_authorize_resource through: :comment, through_association: :votes_for```
This line tries to load the resource @comment and through the association
"votes_for" it tries to create a new vote associated to that debate.
Therefore a vote is created when trying to authorise the resource and
then another one in the create action, when calling @comment.vote.
As far as possible I think the code is clearer if we use CRUD actions
rather than custom actions. This will make it easier to add the action
to remove votes in the next commit.
Note that we are adding this line as we need to validate it that a vote
can be created on a debate by the current user:
```authorize! :create, Vote.new(voter: current_user, votable: @debate)```
We have done it this way and not with the following code as you might
expect, as this way two votes are created instead of one.
```load_and_authorize_resource through: :debate, through_association: :votes_for```
This line tries to load the resource @debate and through the association
"votes_for" it tries to create a new vote associated to that debate.
Therefore a vote is created when trying to authorise the resource and
then another one in the create action, when calling @debate.vote_by (which
is called by @debate.register_vote).
Note we're excluding a few files:
* Configuration files that weren't generated by us
* Migration files that weren't generated by us
* The Gemfile, since it includes an important comment that must be on
the same line as the gem declaration
* The Budget::Stats class, since the heading statistics are a mess and
having shorter lines would require a lot of refactoring
Note that the `create` action doesn't create an image but updates an
answer instead. We're removing the references to `:create` in the
abilities since it isn't used.
In the future we might change the form to add an image to an answer
because it's been broken for ages since it shows all the attached
images.
The action and the views were almost identical, with the supports
progress and the HTML classes of the success message element being the
only exceptions; we can use CSS for the styles instead.
The `legislation_proposals#index` action was never used because it used
the same URL as `legislation_processes#proposals`.
In commit 702bfec24 we removed the view, but we forgot to remove the
controller action, the route, and some partials which were rendered from
the index view.
In the past, users had permission to edit their own legislation
proposals. However, that changed in commit ebfa3fb01, where we replaced
the `can` method with `cannot`.
An easier way to remove this permission is to simply remove the whole
statement, since by default users don't have permissions to do anything.
We're also adding a test checking users can't edit their own legislation
proposals, since it was missing.
The `edit` action is automatically authorized with the rules used for
`:update`, the same way the `new` action is authorized with the rules
used for `:create`.
So we don't need to authorize the edit and new actions.
These changes make it easier for institutions customizing Consul to
notice what they need to change if (for instance) they want users to be
able to edit investments under certain conditions.
Note we don't cast negative votes when users remove their support. That
way we provide compatibility for institutions who have implemented real
negative votes (in case there are / will be any), and we also keep the
database meaningful: it's not that users downvoted something; they
simply removed their upvote.
Co-Authored-By: Javi Martín <javim@elretirao.net>
Co-Authored-By: Julian Nicolas Herrero <microweb10@gmail.com>
Since we're going to add an action to remove supports, having a separate
controller makes things easier.
Note there was a strange piece of code which assumed users were not
verified if they couldn't vote investments. Now the code is also
strange, since it assumes users are not verified if they can't create
votes. We might need to revisit these conditions if our logic changes in
the future.
Unfortunately this feature wasn't properly reviewed and tested, and it
had many bugs, some of them critical and hard to fix, like validations
being skipped in concurrent requests.
So we're removing it before releasing version 1.1. We might add it back
in the future if we manage to solve the critical issues.
This commit reverts commit 836f9ba7.
* Fixed common ability: Retired draft proposal can't be published.
* Fixed proposal dashboard view: progress graph is not available for
draft proposals.
Added check in poll card that allows setting the value of
results_enabled flag.
Access to stats/results now is controlled with abilities.
Polls related to proposals will be accessible to the proposal author
like they were administrators.
Public view for suggested actions as well as resources has been
completelly redesigned.
Private side for this feature has been adapted as well in order to meet
the requirements.
