We have three filters: "pending", "all" and "reviewed". Where "pending"
is the default one.
Now we are rendering the `shared/_filter_subnav` partial we need to stub
helper methods defined at the controller and the helper methods that
rely on the request parameters to test the component.
These cards will be displayed in the SDG homepage.
Note there seems to be a strange behavior in cancancan. If we define
these rules:
can :manage, Widget::Card, page_type: "SDG::Phase"
can :manage, Widget::Card
The expected behavior is the first rule will always be ignored because
the second one overwrites it. However, when creating a new card with
`load_and_authorize_resource` will automatically add `page_type:
"SDG::Phase"`.
Similarly, if we do something like:
can :manage, Widget::Card, id: 3
can :manage, Widget::Card
Then the new card will have `3` as an ID.
Maybe upgrading cancancan solves the issue; we haven't tried it. For now
we're defining a different rule when creating widget cards.
We use a different logic to load the card depending on the controller
we're using, and then share the rest of the code. This way we simplify
the code a bit, since we don't have to check for the page_id parameter.
Note we're using the code instead of the ID to get the goal in the URL.
IMHO this is what most people would expect; visiting a URL with a "7"
takes you to SDG number 7, and not to the one with "7" as a database ID.
In order to avoid tests (either automated tests or manual tests) passing
by coincidence due to the goal ID and the goal code being the same, I'm
shuffling the codes before entering them in the databse.
I've tried using `resolve` in the routes so the code is automatically
taken into account, but it doesn't work since `resolve` cannot be used
inside a namespace, and here we're within the `sdg` namespace.
Note using `params[:relatable_type].classify` is recognized as a
security risk by some tools. However, it's a false positive, since we've
added constraints to the URL so that paramenter can only have the values
we trust.
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
Ruby 2.6 introduces `Enumerable#filter` as an alias to
`Enumerable#select`, and so our Filterable.filter method will not work
with Ruby 2.6.
So we're renaming the method to `filter_by`, which is similar to
`find_by`. We could also change the `filter` method so if a block is
given it delegates to `Enumerable#filter`, the same way ActiveRecord
handles the `select` method, but IMHO this is easier to follow.
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.
We removed it in commit d639cd58 because it recommended using `uniq`
where `distinct` was more appropriate. This has been fixed in
rubocop-rails 2.6.0.
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.
