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
The only view that linked to this action was never used and so it was
deleted in commit 0bacd5baf.
Since now the proposals controller is the only one place rendering the
`shared/map` partial, we're moving it to the proposals views.
When customizing CONSUL, one of the most common actions is adding a new
field to a form.
This requires modifying the permitted/allowed parameters. However, in
most cases, the method returning these parameters returned an instance
of `ActionController::Parameters`, so adding more parameters to it
wasn't easy.
So customizing the code required copying the method returning those
parameters and adding the new ones. For example:
```
def something_params
params.require(:something).permit(
:one_consul_attribute,
:another_consul_attribute,
:my_custom_attribute
)
end
```
This meant that, if the `something_params` method changed in CONSUL, the
customization of this method had to be updated as well.
So we're extracting the logic returning the parameters to a method which
returns an array. Now this code can be customized without copying the
original method:
```
alias_method :consul_allowed_params, :allowed_params
def allowed_params
consul_allowed_params + [:my_custom_attribute]
end
```
Just like we did in commit 0214184b2d for investments, we're removing
some possible optimizations (we don't have any benchmarks proving they
affect performance at all) in order to simplify the code.
The investement votes component `delegate` code was accidentally left
but isn't used since commit 0214184b2, so we're removing it now that
we're removing the `voted_for?` helper method.
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.
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.
We were very inconsistent regarding these rules.
Personally I prefer no empty lines around blocks, clases, etc... as
recommended by the Ruby style guide [1], and they're the default values
in rubocop, so those are the settings I'm applying.
The exception is the `private` access modifier, since we were leaving
empty lines around it most of the time. That's the default rubocop rule
as well. Personally I don't have a strong preference about this one.
[1] https://rubystyle.guide/#empty-lines-around-bodies
Just like it's done everywhere else in the application. Not doing so
means users who aren't logged in receive a "you aren't authorized"
message when they try to create a new legislation proposal instead of
being redirected to the login page.
