- added 2 new types
- modified the models to get data through graphQL
- modified the corresponding spec
- also testing that hidden comments do not show up
- modified comments specs bc now it returns comments on budget
investments
This method was added in Rails 7.0 and makes the code slihgtly more
readable.
The downside is that it generates two queries instead of one, so it
might generate some confusion when debugging SQL queries. Its impact on
performance is probably negligible.
When we first started caching the stats, generating them was a process
that took several minutes, so we never expired the cache.
However, there have been cases where we run into issues where the stats
shown on the screen were outdated. That's why we introduced a task to
manually expire the cache.
But now, generating the stats only takes a few seconds, so we can
automatically expire them every day, remove all the logic needed to
manually expire them, and get rid of most of the issues related to the
cache being outdated.
We're expiring them every day because it's the same day we were doing in
public stats (which we removed in commit 631b48f58), only we're using
`expires_at:` to set the expiration time, in order to simplify the code.
Note that, in the test, we're using `travel_to(time)` so the test passes
even when it starts an instant before midnight. We aren't using
`:with_frozen_time` because, in similar cases (although not in this
case, but I'm not sure whether that's intentional), `travel_to` shows
this error:
> Calling `travel_to` with a block, when we have previously already made
> a call to `travel_to`, can lead to confusing time stubbing.
Note that in the budgets wizard test we now create district with no
associated geozone, so the text "all city" will appear in the districts
table too, meaning we can't use `within "section", text: "All city" do`
anymore since it would result in an ambiguous match.
Co-Authored-By: Julian Herrero <microweb10@gmail.com>
Co-Authored-By: Javi Martín <javim@elretirao.net>
Avoid displaying the price in admin budget headings section
and avoid fill the field 'price' in admin budget headings form
when the budget has been checked with hide_money field.
So now:
* In the first few phases, no filters are shown (just like before)
* During the valuation phase, we show "Active" and "Unfeasible"
* During the final voting, we show "Active" (which now refers to the
selected investments), "Not selected for the final voting" and
"Unfeasible"
* When the budget is finished, we show "Winners", "Not selected for the
final voting" and "Unfeasible"
Now each investment is shown in one (and only one) of the filters
(except when the budget is finished; in this case we don't show selected
investments which didn't win), and we remove the confusing "Not
unfeasible" filter by only showing it during the valuation phase (before
filters are selected) and renaming it to "Active". We also rearrange the
filters so the default one for each phase is shown first.
The idea of using the "Active" text for investments which can be
selected during the selection phase and voted during the final voting is
experimental. Right now, for simplicity, since we assume filters will
always use the same text, we're removing the "Active" filter when the
budget is finished, since having both "Winners" and "Active" filters
would be confusing.
Before the "valuating" phase, all investments have undecided feasibility
and none have been selected, so the filters would return no results
(except the "not_unfeasible" one, which would return everything).
We removed it in commit c322b2c4a because it was hard to know the
difference between "Feasible" and "Not unfeasible". We're renaming the
"Not unfeasible" filter instead.
We're also moving the "selected" filter so it appears before the
"unselected" filter, just like the "feasible" filter appears before the
"unfeasible" filter.
Calculating winners before the balloting is over is useless (results
aren't published at that point) and can lead to the wrong results since
users are still voting and results might change.
And we were showing the button to calculate winners even when a budget
had finished. However, in this case the action to calculate winners did
nothing, which resulted in administrators seeing nothing happened after
pressing the button.
In the form of creating a new investment was hiding the name of the
group if it had only one heading, but could be confusing to users if
there are, for example, five different groups of one heading.
The solution:
- If the budget has one group and one heading, the heading selector is
hidden.
- If the budget has one group and more than one heading, the group name
is hidden.
- If the budget has more than one group, the group name appears
regardless of the number of headings.
- Allow to define a link (text and url) on budget form for render on the budget
header.
- Improve styles
Co-authored-by: Senén Rodero Rodríguez <senenrodero@gmail.com>
So now there's no need to edit each phase individually to enable/disable
them.
We aren't doing the same thing in the form to edit a budget because we
aren't sure about possible usability issues. On one hand, in some tables
we automatically update records when we mark a checkbox, so users might
expect that. On the other hand, having a checkbox in the middle of a
form which updates the database automatically is counter-intuitive,
particularly when right below that table there are other checkboxes
which don't update the database until the form is submitted.
So, either way, chances are users would think they've updated the phases
(or kept them intact) while the opposite would be true.
In the form within the wizard to create a budget that problem isn't that
important because there aren't any other fields in the form and it's
pretty intuitive that what users do will have no effect until they press
the "Finish" button.
Co-Authored-By: Julian Nicolas Herrero <microweb10@gmail.com>
In this case, the duration of the budget cannot be determined, and the
application was crashing when trying to do so.
Now we're just returning `nil` as duration.
We don't allow deleting a budget with associated investments. However,
we allow deleting a budget with associated administrators and valuators.
This results in a foreign key violation error:
PG::ForeignKeyViolation: ERROR: update or delete on table "budgets"
violates foreign key constraint "fk_rails_c847a52b1d" on table
"budget_administrators"
Using the `dependent: :destroy` option when defining the relationship,
we remove the association records when removing the budget.
As a bonus, we reduce the number of Rubocop offenses regarding the
`Rails/HasManyOrHasOneDependent` rule. Only 72 to go! :)
Previously the draft mode was a phase of the PB, but that had some
limitations.
Now the phase drafting disappears and therefore the PB can have the
status published or not published (in draft mode).
That will give more flexibility in order to navigate through the
different phases and see how it looks for administrators before
publishing the PB and everybody can see.
By default, the PB is always created in draft mode, so it gives you
the flexibility to adjust and modify anything before publishing it.
One method was calling `reason_for_not_being_ballotable_by` passing just
one parameter instead of two.
The other method was calling the method `amount_spent`, which does not
exist in the Budget class.
So both methods would make the application crash if they were called.
Luckily, they aren't, so the application doesn't crash.
When defining abilities, scopes cover more cases because they can be
used to check permissions for a record and to filter a collection. Ruby
blocks can only be used to check permissions for a record.
Note the `Budget::Phase.kind_or_later` name sounds funny, probably
because we use the word "phase" for both an an attribute in the budgets
table and an object associated with the budget, and so naming methods
for a budget phase is a bit tricky.
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.
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 very inconsistent regarding these rules.
Personally I prefer no empty lines around blocks, clases, etc... as
recommended by the Ruby style guide [1], and they're the default values
in rubocop, so those are the settings I'm applying.
The exception is the `private` access modifier, since we were leaving
empty lines around it most of the time. That's the default rubocop rule
as well. Personally I don't have a strong preference about this one.
[1] https://rubystyle.guide/#empty-lines-around-bodies
In Ruby, the Kernel class defined the `open` method, which is available
for (almost) every object. So creating a scope with the name `open`
generates a warning indicating we are overwriting the existing `open`
method.
While this warning is pretty much harmless and we could ignore it, it
generates a lot of noise in the logs. So I'm "undefining" the method
before generating the scope, so we don't get the warning all the time.
Sanitizing descriptions before saving a record has a few drawbacks:
1. It makes the application rely on data being safe in the database. If
somehow dangerous data enters the database, the application will be
vulnerable to XSS attacks
2. It makes the code complicated
3. It isn't backwards compatible; if we decide to disallow a certain
HTML tag in the future, we'd need to sanitize existing data.
On the other hand, sanitizing the data in the view means we don't need
to triple-check dangerous HTML has already been stripped when we see the
method `auto_link_already_sanitized_html`, since now every time we use
it we sanitize the text in the same line we call this method.
We could also sanitize the data twice, both when saving to the database
and when displaying values in the view. However, doing so wouldn't make
the application safer, since we sanitize text introduced through
textarea fields but we don't sanitize text introduced through input
fields.
Finally, we could also overwrite the `description` method so it
sanitizes the text. But we're already introducing Globalize which
overwrites that method, and overwriting it again is a bit too confusing
in my humble opinion. It can also lead to hard-to-debug behaviour.
As mentioned in the Rails console:
DEPRECATION WARNING: Passing a class to the `class_name` is deprecated
and will raise an ArgumentError in Rails 5.2. It eagerloads more classes
than necessary and potentially creates circular dependencies. Please
pass the class name as a string.
We need a way to manually expire the cache for a budget or poll without
expiring the cache of every budget or poll.
Using the `updated_at` column would be dangerous because most of the
times we update a budget or a poll, we don't need to regenerate their
stats.
We've considered adding a `stats_updated_at` column to each of these
tables. However, in that case we would also need to add a similar column
in the future to every process type whose stats we want to generate.
This implementation is a bit more robust because we don't have to change
any of the "or_later?" methods if we add or remove a new phase.
We could also use metaprogramming to reduce code duplication in these
methods. So far, I've decided to keep the code simple since the
duplication seems reasonable.
