Note that we used to have the link to delete images inside the same
<form> tag as the button to update the image. However, using a button
means we're adding a new <form> tag for the action to delete the image.
This isn't valid HTML and, in some browsers, might result in the button
sending the request to the wrong URL.
As explained in commit 5311daadf, to avoid this, we'd need to replace
`button_to` with `button_tag` in the action in order to generate a
button without a form. Then, we could add either a `form` or a
`formaction` attribute to the button.
However, I thik it's easier to move the delete button outside the update
button <form> tag. On the minus side, since the buttons no longer share
a parent, they're harder to style. So we're using a mix of nested flex
layouts with one of the nested elements using a container unit as width.
Since we're at it, we're also improving the styles on small and medium
screens by making sure the "Update" button wraps before the "Delete"
button does (using a container query), by giving enough width to the
column containing this actions on small screens as well (removing
`small-12` and giving it two-thirds of the width on all screen sizes)
and by having a gap between elements.
Note that, at the time of writing, container queries are only supported
by about 91%-93% of the browsers, meaning that some administrators will
see all from controls displayed vertically, one on top of the other, on
all screen sizes. We think this is acceptable, and the page remains
fully functional in this case.
We were already using buttons to destroy pages from the pages index.
As mentioned in commits 5311daadf and bb958daf0, using links combined
with JavaScript to generate POST (or, in this case, DELETE) requests to
the server has a few issues.
This way we can simplify setting the title and styling the link in the
header. We're also fixing the unnecessary padding introduced by the
`column` classes, which caused the header not to be aligned with the
rest of the elements surrounding it. We're still keeping it the margin
used in the `row` classes so it's aligned with the rest of the form;
ideally, we would remove the `row` classes in the rest of the form and
in the whole admin section, but this isn't something we can tackle right
now.
Note that, in the CSS, the `margin-left: auto` property needs to be
included after `@include regular-button` because that mixin overwrites
the `margin-left` property. Since we're modifying this code, we're
making it compatible with RTL text, using `$global-left` instead of
`left`.
In Rails 6.1 and earlier, `button_to` generated a <button> tag when it
received the content as a block, but an <input> tag when receiving
the content as the first parameter.
That's why we were using blocks with `button_to` most of the time; for
starters, <button> tags accept pseudocontent and so are easier to style.
In Rails 7.0, `button_to` always generates a <button> tag [1], so we're
simplifying the code what uses `button_to`, passing the content as a
first parameter instead of passing it as a block.
[1] https://guides.rubyonrails.org/v7.1/configuring.html#config-action-view-button-to-generates-button-tag
We were using generic names like `args` and `options` which don't really
add anything to `*` or `**` because Ruby required us to.
That's no longer the case in Ruby 3.2, so we can simplify the code a
bit.
Many pages had this tag, but many other didn't, which made navigation
inconsistent for people using screen readers.
Note that there are slight changes in two pages:
* The homepage now includes the banner and the content of the
`shared/header` element inside the <main> tag
* The budgets index now includes the banner inside the <main> tag
I see both potential advantages and disadvantages of this approach,
since banners aren't necessarily related to the main content of a page
but on the other hand they aren't the same across pages and people using
screen readers might accidentally skip them if they jump to the <main>
tag.
So I'm choosing the option that is easier to implement.
Note we're adding a `public-content` class to the <main> element in the
application layout. This might be redundat because the element could
already be accessed through the `.public main` selector, but this is
consistent with the `admin-content` class used in the admin section, and
without it the <main> element would sometimes have an empty class
attribute and we'd have to use `if content_for?(:main_class)` or
`tag.main` which IMHO makes the code less consistent.
The Capybara::DSL monkey-patch is only done on the `visit` method
because it's the only reliable one. Other methods like `click_link`
generate AJAX requests, so `expect(page).to have_css "main", count: 1`
might be executed before the AJAX request is finished, meaning it
wouldn't properly test anything.
The `use_helpers` method was added in ViewComponent 3.8.0, and it's
included by default in all components since version 3.11.0.
Note we sometimes delegated the `can?` method to the controller instead
of the helpers, for no particularly reason. We're unifying that code as
well.
Before this change, two important things depend on the format of each key,
where to render it in the administration panel and which kind of interface
to use for each setting. Following this strategy led us to a very complex
code, very difficult to maintain or modify. So, we do not want to depend
on the setting key structure anymore to decide how or where to render each
setting.
With this commit, we get rid of the key format-based rules. Now we render
each setting explicitly passing to it the type and the tab where it belongs.
Instead of using a setting nested param `setting[:tab]`. We only need
the tab param when rendering settings in the administration section.
This change will make it easier rendering the correct tab after
updating settings.
In the admin section, when clicking on a link that leads to a page in
the public area, sometimes the page was opened in the same window and
sometimes it would open in a new window, with no clear criteria
regarding when either scenario would take place.
This was really confusing, so now we're more consistent and open
(almost) every link in the same window. The main reason behind it is
simple: if we add `target: _blank`, people who want to open those links
in the same window can no longer do so, so we're taking control away
from them. However, if we don't add this attribute, people can choose
whether to open the link on the same tab or to open it on a new one,
since all browsers implement a method to do so.
More reasons behind this decision can be found in "Opening Links in New
Browser Windows and Tabs" [1].
We're keeping some exceptions, though:
* Opening the link to edit an investment on the same tab would result in
losing all the investment filters already applied when searching for
investments, so until we implement a way to keep these filters, we're
also opening the link to edit an investment in a new tab
* For now, we're also opening links to download files in a new window;
we'll deal with this case in the future
[1] https://www.nngroup.com/articles/new-browser-windows-and-tabs/
In some places, we were using `blank` instead of `_blank`. Most browsers
treat `blank` like `_blank`, though, so most people didn't experience
any difference.
In another place, we were incorrectly passing the `target` option inside
an `options:` hash, resulting in invalid HTML.
Quoting usability experts Jakob Nielsen and Anna Kaley [1]:
> [Opening PDF files in new tabs] is problematic, because it assumes
> users will always do the exact same things with certain file formats,
> which isn’t always the case.
There are many examples of this situation. For example, some people
(myself included) configure their browser so it downloads PDF files
instead of opening them in the browser. In this situation, a new tab is
opened, a blank page is displayed, the file is downloaded, and then
either the tab is closed or the blank page needs to be manually closed.
The end result is really annoying.
Other situations include people who use a mobile phone browser, where
navigating through tabs is generally much harder than doing so on a
desktop browser.
But IMHO the most important point is: every browser already provides a
way to open "regular" links in a new tab, so people can choose what to
do, but if we decide to open the link in a new tab, we take control away
from them, and people who'd like to open the link in the same tab might
feel frustrated.
In these cases, the links either say "download" or include the word
"PDF", so people know in advance that they're going to download/open a
PDF file, and so we're giving them information and, by removing the
`target` attribute, we're giving them control over their browser so they
can choose what's convenient for them.
[1] https://www.nngroup.com/articles/new-browser-windows-and-tabs
We were adding <div> tags with the `images` or `documents` HTML class
prettly much every time we rendered a NestedComponent. We're now
including the HTML class inside the component, as we usually do.
We're also rendering the nested components directly, since it's been a
while since the partials were changed to simply render the components.
There's a link next to it that does the exact same thing and includes
the word "download", which was confusing in some cases since people
might think that links with different texts lead to different pages.
This way we make it easier to modify.
Note that, since the title of the page is "Administration" and it's in
the "Admin" section, we're adding an option to the `header` method in
order to avoid having a confusing title like "Administration - Admin".
Also note that, by removing the `title` HTML class, we avoid inheriting
styles from the `dashboard.scss` stylesheet, and now the heading is
displayed in the position it was meant to.
Finally, the concept of using a `main-class` for the current page comes
from a branch (currently in development) which will replace the <div>
tag with the `admin-content` class with a `main` tag.
Previously the condition was needed because _without it_ the Admin::Poll::Questions::Answers::ImagesController would have resulted in settings? evaluating to true. This was undesired because that controller was scoped under Polls, so only polls? should have evaluated to true. Now that we have moved the images link to the customization menu, this check is not necessary anymore.
There were already some menu items to customization pages under the "Site content" menu. It therefore makes sense to move "Custom images" and "Custom content blocks" (which were previously
located under "Settings") to "Site content" as well.
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
For the HashAlignment rule, we're using the default `key` style (keys
are aligned and values aren't) instead of the `table` style (both keys
and values are aligned) because, even if we used both in the
application, we used the `key` style a lot more. Furthermore, the
`table` style looks strange in places where there are both very long and
very short keys and sometimes we weren't even consistent with the
`table` style, aligning some keys without aligning other keys.
Ideally we could align hashes to "either key or table", so developers
can decide whether keeping the symmetry of the code is worth it in a
case-per-case basis, but Rubocop doesn't allow this option.
