The `refresh_ballots` partial ignores the `investment` parameter
completely; instead, it iterates over the investments in the
`@investments` instance variable.
The main obstacle to extract this partial was probably the paths for the
flag and unflag actions.
Now that we use Rails 5.1 `resolve` method to handle nested resources,
we can use `polymorphic_path`.
Also note the code is a bit ugly because comments render a divider. We
should probably use a CSS border instead.
Co-Authored-By: taitus <sebastia.roig@gmail.com>
We were treating legislation proposals as if they were proposals,
omitting the "legislation" namespace, and so we were flagging/unflagging
proposals when we wanted to flag/unflag a legislation proposal.
We weren't using `foundation()` in these cases, so after flagging a
debate or a comment, we had to reload the page before we could unflag
it.
We're also adding a test for the fix in commit ea85059d. This test shows
it's necessary to filter the elements with JavaSctipt using `first()` if
we want the same code to work with comments.
Co-Authored-By: taitus <sebastia.roig@gmail.com>
Originally, the code was shared between the index action and the search
action, but since commit fb6dbdf2 that's no longer the case. So in the
index action we don't need to check whether a user is a
moderator/manager/admin/official or not; they all are.
Extract the needed portion of code to a new partial to be able to update
only the elements needed when a new comment is added keeping UI properly
updated.
In this case the confirmation dialog isn't really necessary since the
action to enable/disable the setting can easily be undone.
Furthermore, these tests were failing with Chrome 83, probably because
we use `confirm_dialog` and then we use `visit` without checking the
page in between.
In theory we shouldn't need to check the page in between because the
request generated by `confirm_dialog` is a synchronous one and so
`visit` isn't executed after the previous request has finished, but
apparently this behavior has changed in Chrome 83.
We could add an expectation before executing the `visit` method, but
that wouldn't improve the usability of the application.
The number of errors in a form includes several errors for the same
field. For example, if a title is mandatory and has to have at least 5
characters, leaving the title blank will result in two errors. So users
will be invited to look for two errors, but they'll only find one field
with errors.
So it's a bit more intuitive to show as many errors as fields having
errors.
Note we're excluding errors on `:base`, which is a bit of a hack for
errors in association fields. For example, if the title of one
translation is not present, `resource.errors.messages` will contain two
elements: one for the translation's title, and one for the `base` field.
This resulted in the count of errors being 2 when there was only one.
Also note I haven't found a way to count errors on all `has_many`
relations. That is, if two translations have a missing title field, only
one error will be mentioned in the message (as it did before this
commit).
We were using inline styles and passing local variables around, while
the rule we were following is very simple: it's only hidden if it's a
form to reply to a comment.
We were using a <ul> tag for a single comment, where the first element
of the list was the comment itself and the second element was the list
of replies.
IMHO it makes more sense to have a list of all comments, where every
element is a comment and inside it there's a list of replies.
We're also rendering the list even if it has no children so it's easier
to add comments through JavaScript. Then we use the :empty CSS selector
to hide the list if it's empty. However, since ERB adds whitespace if we
structure our code the usual way and current browsers don't recognize
elements with whitespace as empty, we have to use the `tag` helper so no
whitespace is added.
Tests are also a bit easier to read, even though we need to use the
`text:` option to find links because otherwise the text in the hidden
`<span>` tags will cause `click_link` to miss the link we want to click.
Here's an explanation by one of Capybara's authors:
https://github.com/teamcapybara/capybara/issues/2347#issuecomment-626373440
We were passing around many variables to condition the way we display
the comment. However, in the end we only had one place where these
variables were used: valuation. So we can make everything depend on the
valuation variable.
It was created in commit 83d254ad, but it was never used, since the
commit creating it removed the code rendering the
`budgets/investments/comments` partial, which this partial was supposed
to replace.
The method `tag_list_on` doesn't add an `ORDER_BY` clause to the SQL
query it generates, and so results may come in any order.
However, in the tests we were assuming the tags were ordered by ID in
descending order. Since that isn't always the case, the tests were
failing sometimes.
Ordering the tags alphabetically solves the problem. We could also use
the same order admins used when adding the tags:
```
@process.customs.order("taggings.created_at").pluck(:name).join(", ")
```
However, I'm not sure it improves the user experience, and it makes the
code more complicated.
benefit to administratos.
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.
In the admin menu, some links take you to a section, and some links open
a submenu with more links.
When we disable the "multi-open" property of the menu and the active
element is a link which takes you to a section, Foundation will hide it
whenever we click a link which opens a submenu.
The easiest solution is to enable "multi-open" property.
In most of the rest of the application the buttons are shown in this
way, we do this little adjustment to improve the consistency with the
rest of the application
Since now it's possible to edit the budget investment during the
accepting phase, it does not really make sense to show the button to
just remove the image when the investment project can be fully edited,
and the image can be removed from the editing form.
