Our manual implementation had a few issues. In particular, it didn't
track changes related to associations, which became more of an issue
when we made investments translatable.
Using audited gives us more functionality while at the same time
simplifies our code. However, it adds one more external dependency to
our project.
The reason for choosing audited over paper trail is audited seems to
make it easier to handle associations.
If we validate the presence of the old value and the new value, changes
in optional fields will not be stored if either the old value or the new
value are blank.
The current tracking section had a few issues:
* When browsing as an admin, this section becomes useless since no
investments are shown
* Browsing investments in the admin section, you're suddenly redirected
to the tracking section, making navigation confusing
* One test related to the officing dashboard failed due to these changes
and had been commented
* Several views and controller methods were copied from other sections,
leading to duplication and making the code harder to maintain
* Tracking routes were defined for proposals and legislation processes,
but in the tracking section only investments were shown
* Probably many more things, since these issues were detected after only
an hour reviewing and testing the code
So we're removing this untested section before releasing version 1.1. We
might add it back afterwards.
Tags and help links can be edited, but aren't used anywhere. Since we
don't know what the intended behavior was, I'm removing them for now.
My best guess is tags were supposed to be used so investments for a
budget can only be assigned tags present in the budget. Achieving that
behavior wouldn't be a trivial task.
We were ordering one group of tags alphabetically and then adding
another group of tags which wasn't ordered alphabetically, which didn't
make much sense.
Since budgets now have milestone tags, the name of this method was
confusing and will conflict with the name generated by acts_as_taggable.
Note the new name could be improved too.
We were manually doing the same thing, generating inconsistent results,
since the method `valuation_tag_list` was using the `valuation` context,
when actually the expected behavior would be to use the `valuation_tag`
context.
We need to add a hidden field for each group of check boxes, so if we
don't check anything, the hidden field is sent to the server, indicating
nothing was selected. Without the hidden field, the server will not know
anything has been done to the check boxes.
The easiest way to do it is using `collection_check_boxes`, which also
adds labels to every check box.
We were using two different systems to set translations in JavaScript:
to set the text for languages, we were using data attributes, and to set
the text for staff members, we were using AJAX calls.
I find data attributes keep the code more simple, since there's no need
to define an extra route and controller action. Furthermore, the user
experience is better because response times are faster.
So now both places use data attributes.
When a poll is created, and any of the questions for that poll doesn't
have any answer created, the following exception was raised when
trying to see the results:
Failure/Error: question_answers.max_by {|answer| answer.total_votes }.id
ActionView::Template::Error:
undefined method `id' for nil:NilClass
./app/models/poll/question.rb:66:in `most_voted_answer_id'
Unfortunately this feature wasn't properly reviewed and tested, and it
had many bugs, some of them critical and hard to fix, like validations
being skipped in concurrent requests.
So we're removing it before releasing version 1.1. We might add it back
in the future if we manage to solve the critical issues.
This commit reverts commit 836f9ba7.
Class variables in Ruby are not the same as instance variables of a
class. They're particularly tricky when it comes to inheritance and
modules.
In the case of the Measurable module, for example, using a class
variable will make all classes including the Measurable module share
the same value. However, that's not what we want; we want the variable
to be different for every class. And that's accomplished using a class
instance variable.
Although in this case it would probably be better to remove the caching
variable. I don't think these methods are called more than once during a
request, and even if they did it's highly unlikely the would become a
bottleneck.
I had mixed feelings about this rule, since I like spaces where
possible.
However, I changed my mind when I realized writing `->(thing) { }` was
similar to defining a method, and we don't have a space before the
parenthesis when defining a method.
This method is ambiguous. Sometimes we use it to set invalid data in
tests (which can usually be done with `update_column`), and other times
we use it instead of `update!`.
I'm removing it because, even if sometimes it could make sense to use
it, it's too similar to `update_attributes` (which is an alias for
`update` and runs validations), making it confusing.
However, there's one case where we're still using it: in the
ActsAsParanoidAliases module, we need to invoke the callbacks, which
`update_column` skips, but tests related to translations fail if we use
`update!`. The reason for this is the tests check what happens if we
restore a record without restoring its translations. But that will make
the record invalid, since there's a validation rule checking it has at
least one translation.
I'm not blacklisting any other method which skips validations because we
know they skip validations and use them anyway (hopefully with care).
Not doing so has a few gotchas when working with relations, particularly
with records which are not stored in the database.
I'm excluding the related content file because it's got a very peculiar
relationship with itself: the `has_one :opposite_related_content` has no
inverse; the relation itself is its inverse. It's a false positive since
the inverse condition is true:
```
content.opposite_related_content.opposite_related_content.object_id ==
content.object_id
```
Usually when we specify a `belongs_to` relations, we also specify its
equivalent `has_many`. That allows us to write, for example:
`topic.user.topics`.
Just like we do in the Budget module, and in some places in the Poll and
Legislation modules, we don't need to specify the class name when the
name of the relation matches the name of a class in the same module.
