There are some sections where we are not reusing it:
* The budget investments search is completely different, so this
component isn't appropriate there
* Booth assignment and officers are slightly different, and I'm not
entirely sure it's safe to refactor these cases
We were writing the same text over and over for the same translations.
Since they all serve the same function, it's perfectly fine for them to
have the same text, and so we can have a shared translation.
Note the CSS could probably be improved to avoid duplication with other
button style definitions. However, that's fine because we're going to
change the style of the links soon.
For the same reason, I haven't bothered to style every single link the
way it was until now.
In some tables, we had "actions", and some columns were also links
pointing to some places. Having both of them at the same time is
confusing, particularly since traditionally the links in the columns
pointed to the same place as some of the actions (although that's not
the case since commit 48db31cd).
We're still keeping links in tables which don't have an action column.
For instance, the proposals table has a "select" button which would be
harder to use if we had action buttons next to it.
Now we can use the checkbox label text directly as locator at spec,
also default web_sections are created before every spec by loading
`db/seeds.rb` file so we were duplicating "Proposals" WebSection.
We were allowing users to check/uncheck the "Visible to valuators"
checkbox even when the budget is finished and so the investments cannot
be edited. So users were still able to check/uncheck this attribute, but
the server was silently rejecting these changes.
We've considered removing the column in this case but decided to keep it
since users can already control which columns they'd like to display.
After upgrading to Turbolinks 5, redirects are followed on AJAX
requests, so we were accidentally redirecting the user after they mark
an investment as visible to valuators.
There was already a system spec failing due to this issue ("Admin budget
investments Mark as visible to valuators Keeps the valuation tags");
however, it only failed in some cases, so we're adding additional tests.
Ideally we would write a system test to check what happens when users
click on the checkbox. However, from the user's point of view, nothing
happens when they do so, and so testing it is hard. There's a usability
issue here (no feedback is provided to the user indicating the
investment is actually updated when they click on the checkbox and so
they might look for a button to send the form), which also results in a
feature which is difficult to test.
So we're writing two tests instead: one checking the controller does not
redirect when using a JSON request, and one checking the form submits a
JSON request.
I've chosen JSON over AJAX because usually requests to the update action
come from the edit form, and we might change the edit form to send an
AJAX request (and, in this case, Turbolinks would handle the redirect as
mentioned above).
Another option would be to send an AJAX request to a different action,
like it's done for the toggle selection action. I don't have a strong
preference for either option, so I'm leaving it the way it was. At some
point we should change the user interface, though; right now in the same
row there are two actions doing basically the same thing (toggling
valuator visibility and toggling selection) but with very different user
interfaces (one is a checkbox and the other one a link changing its
style depending on the state), resulting in a confusing interface.
There were places where we had two links pointing to the same place; one
link would be the name/title of a record, and one link would be under
the "actions" column.
This is confusing, since users would probably expect these links to
point to different places (which is what happens in other tables in the
admin section) and might try to click one of them and then the other
one and be surprised when they found out both of them go to the same
page.
This way we can remove duplication and simplify the code in the view.
Note we're not using the "within" method in the tests to access a row,
because it doesn't seem to work in components tests when passing the
`text:` option.
In the past we were using some <div> tags surrounding table action
links in order to guarantee these links wouldn't be wider that their
cell's space and wouldn't expand over two lines.
However, while these links didn't expand over two lines, at certain
resolutions the width of their text exceeded the width of the links,
causing part of the text to be outside their borders.
This behavior was also inconsistent: some tables had these <div> tags,
and some tables didn't.
Since we've now introduced the table actions component, the code is more
consistent and we're getting rid of these <div> tags. So now we're again
facing the issue where links could expand over two lines.
Using a flex layout solves this issue and considerably improves the
layout at lower resolutions.
This partial was going to get too complex since in some places we've got
different texts, different URLs or different confirmation messages.
While we should probably try to be more consistent and that would make
the partial work in most cases, there'll always be some exceptions, and
using a partial (with, perhaps, some helper methods) will become messy
really quickly.
We can find the booth through the booth assignment, so we don't need to
pass it in the URL.
Since the parameter is in the URL and not sent through a form, we can
also use `params[:poll_id]` directly, and so we can reuse the
`load_poll` method.
While Foundations's off-canvas menu allows us to forget about writing
CSS, it also leads to complicated HTML.
Ideally Foundation would provide an easy way to simplify what we're
doing, but I haven't found anything in the documentation.
We could simplify the HTML a bit more if we used a CSS grid layout
instead of a flex one, but old browsers have better support for the
latter.
Note we're using `breakpoint(medium)` so we can group the CSS for small
screens and follow SCSS-Lint rules at the same time.
Also note behavior of the main area when the menu appears on small
screens is slightly different: it doesn't move the main content to the
right. I've done it this way so we don't have any overflow issues,
unlike the previous version.
There's a small issue using a label and a checkbox to enable/disable the
menu: sighted keyboard users with a small screen might not be able to
enable the menu. So we're adding the `:focus-within` pseudoclass so the
menu can be normally navigated using the keyboard. Even if old browsers
don't support this pseudoclass, we believe the probability of a sighted
user using a small screen, navigating with the keyboard and using an old
browser is really low, particularly in the admin area.
We're also adding the `aria-hidden` attribute on the label, since the
menu is never hidden for screen readers and so having a control to show
it could be confusing. Since the label is not focusable, we're complying
with the fourth ARIA rule:
> Do not use role="presentation" or aria-hidden="true" on a focusable
> element .
>
> Using either of these on a focusable element will result in some users
> focusing on 'nothing'.
In commit 74083df1 we added the possibility to assign administrators and
valuators to budgets, so they would only manage the budgets they're
assigned to.
However, when filtering projects, we were still showing all
administrators and valuators as options to filter investments. It makes
more sense to only show the valuators and administrators assigned to the
current budget.
Note this change only affects the view, and so malicious users could
technically send any other administrator or valuator ID. In this case,
they would get empty results since those administrators/valuators
wouldn't have any investments assigned, so taking this case into account
is not necessary.
Legislation Processes created through the admin form were getting the default color.
However, Legislation processes created by other means (like the `db:dev_seed` rake task) were not getting these default values.
This feature was originally implemented when we were using Rails 4.
With Rails 5, we can provide default values to all new Legislation processes
and simplify the code at the same time thanks to its `attribute` method.
Related commit:
https://github.com/consul/consul/pull/4080/commits/0b83be6
We've had to add a couple of hacks in order to make jQuery UI datepicker
work with Turbolinks, and one of our tests is failing because the
datepicker changes its height when changing from a month with 5 weeks to
a month with 6 weeks.
We could add a workaround so the test still passes (jQuery UI doesn't
provide a configuration option to always displays 6 weeks in the
datepicker), but I think it's easier to just use the HTML5 native date
input field, which also allows us to simplify the code a bit and IMHO it
improves the user experience, particularly when using mobile phones.
Since date fields are not supported in Safari and Internet Explorer,
we're still using the jQuery UI datepicker on those browsers (and on any
other browser not supporting date fields).
Due to these changes, we're moving the tests checking datepicker's
behaviour to the dashboard. I've choosing not to change the public pages
because I'm not 100% sure everybody would like this change (some people
prefer the datepicker because we can configure the way it looks).
We were using a <label> tag with no associated field where a <legend>
tag was more appropriate. With a fieldset, we also make it obvious these
fields are related.
Rails automatically disables buttons when submitting a form. This works
fine most of the time: for AJAX requests, it enables them again after
the request is complete, and for non-AJAX requests, the button is
replaced by a new element when the new page loads.
However, there's an exception. When a request returns data so users can
download a fire, the request is not an AJAX one and the button is not
replaced. So users are left with a disabled button they can no longer
click.
So in this case, we aren't disabling the button after a user clicks it.
Banners created through the admin form were getting the default color.
However, banners created by other means (like the `db:dev_seed` rake
task) were not getting these default values.
This feature was originally implemented when we were using Rails 4.
With Rails 5, we can provide default values to all new banners and
simplify the code at the same time thanks to its `attribute` method.
Now, when creating a new banner, instead of getting a blank space, we
get an empty line with the banner's default background color, which most
users won't know what it's about until they fill in the banner's title.
So we're not displaying the content of the banner when it's empty,
thanks to the `:empty` CSS pseudoclass.
