The interface was a bit confusing, since after clicking on "See
unfeasible investments" (or similar), we were on a page where no
investments were shown.
Besides, since commit 7e3dd47d5, the group page is only linked from the
"my ballot" page, through a link inviting the user to vote in that
group, and it's only possible to vote selected investments (which is the
default filter during the final voting phase).
The only reason we had these links here was these links weren't present
in the investments page. But they're present there since commit
04605d5d5, so we don't need them in the group page anymore.
As mentioned in commit bc0f04075, a <select> field which submits its
form on change causes many accessibility and usability issues. In this
case there was also an incompatibility with the advanced search filter
which caused a bug solved in commit 541a5fa89.
So the question is where to position the filters and how to display
them. One factor to take into the account is how relevant these filters
are, particularly compared to the links to select the prefered order,
since we don't usually give users the choice of both filters and orders.
Our filters don't really make sense until the valuation phase starts,
since before that phase investments aren't selected nor their
feasibility is decided.
After that phase, the only phase where citizens are really involved
is the final voting; the rest of the phases are done by valuators and
administrators. In the final voting, citizens can only vote on selected
projects, and that's the default filter during that phase.
So these filters are mainly there for information purposes, and not to
help citizens in the phases where they're actually involved (accepting
projects, selecting projects and balloting).
Orders, on the other hand, play a crucial role during the final voting
phase. Since citizens might have already voted for a few projects and
have, let's say, 100,000€ left, ordering by price allows them to find
which projects are within their remaining budget.
In conclusion, orders are more important than filters, and so they
should have a more prominent place.
For consistency with the proposals section, where we've got some links
in the sidebar (bottom part of the page on small screens) providing a
similar funcionality, like accessing selected proposals or archived or
retired proposals, we're moving the investments filters to the sidebar
(bottom part of the page on small screens) as well.
A <div> can't be a direct child of a <ul>. In this case the <ul> tag
didn't make much sense because there isn't a list; just a map.
Note the `z-index` rule which was added in commit 25e1afea48 is ignored
because the map element is statically positioned. I'm not sure why it
was added; can't reproduce the rendering problem both that commit and
commit c5a749212 mention. Maybe back then the element had a `position:
relative` rule or similar somewhere.
When render the investment list component with the link "see all
investments", now we redirect to groups index page when a budget has
multiple headings.
The budget header was supposed to be huge, but only in the participatory
budgets index or show actions. It was still huge, with plenty of empty
space, when there was no budget, or in the "submit my ballot" and
"select a heading" pages.
In commit 49b406199 we added an extra `<span>` element just so we could
add an icon to the right while maintaining both the title and subtitle
on the left.
We can do the same thing without the extra `<span>` element, absolutely
positioning the element and leaving enough padding.
We had an additional `<div>` just to add a background color, when we can
do it by applying the background color to the whole `<main>` element and
then the body background color to the optional fields.
However, I've decided not to do so. The main purpose of changing the
background color is to highlight the required fields. The benefits of
changing the background color of the header as well are unclear. When in
doubt, we're using the solution which requires less code.
One of them was less wide than the other one.
We're still only adding the heading to the form for the new investment,
just like in the original budgets redesign.
Note we don't cast negative votes when users remove their support. That
way we provide compatibility for institutions who have implemented real
negative votes (in case there are / will be any), and we also keep the
database meaningful: it's not that users downvoted something; they
simply removed their upvote.
Co-Authored-By: Javi Martín <javim@elretirao.net>
Co-Authored-By: Julian Nicolas Herrero <microweb10@gmail.com>
Since we're going to add an action to remove supports, having a separate
controller makes things easier.
Note there was a strange piece of code which assumed users were not
verified if they couldn't vote investments. Now the code is also
strange, since it assumes users are not verified if they can't create
votes. We might need to revisit these conditions if our logic changes in
the future.
In the previous commit I mentioned:
> If I'm right, the `investment_votes` instance variable only exists to
> avoid several database queries to get whether the current user has
> supported each of the investments.
>
> However, that doesn't make much sense when only one investment is
> shown.
Now let's discuss the case when there are several investments, like in
the investments index:
* There are 10 investments per page by default
* Each query takes less than a millisecond
* We still make a query per investment to check whether the current user
voted in a different group
* AFAIK, there have been no performance tests showing these
optimizations make the request to the investments index significantly
faster
* These optimizations make the code way more complex than it is without
them
Considering all these points, I'm removing the optimizations. I'm fine
with adding `includes` calls to preload records and avoid N+1 queries
even if there are no performance tests showing they make the application
faster because the effect on the code complexity is negligible. But
that's not the case here.
Note we're using `defined?` instead of the `||=` operator because the
`||=` operator will not serve its purpose when the result of the
operation returns `false`.
If I'm right, the `investment_votes` instance variable only exists to
avoid several database queries to get whether the current user has
supported each of the investments.
However, that doesn't make much sense when only one investment is shown.
In this case, the number of queries stays the same, and so we can
simplify the code by rendering the component with an optional parameter.
The `js-` prefix (which I admit I'm not fond of) is usually used to
indicate the class is used by JavaScript files, not for using it in test
files. And in all the other similar tests, we're using the `in-favor`
class instead of the `js-in-favor` class.
This reverts commit 83fe74d53.
When supporting an investment in the management section through the
investment view, we were accessing an action in the public investments
controller. This meant the manager was the one supporting the investment
(as they'd be the `current_user` in this controller) and not the managed
user.
In the case of groups with many headings, voting the first time requires
a confirmation and then a regular (non-AJAX) request takes place. In
this case, users were redirected to the public area instead of remaining
in the management area.
Using the proper URL to vote solves the problem.
Note there was a comment about one of these tests failing in Travis.
Most probably the test failed because there was no expectation after
clicking the link with the investment title, so the "Support" button
(which is also present in the index page) was clicked before the
investment view was loaded.
Note we're using an extra `<span>` element but we could use a CSS grid
layout instead. We're not using it because browser compatibility is only
94.56% at the time of writing.
When users followed/unfollowed a proposal or a budget investment, the
cache did not expire and so the wrong button was displayed after
reloading the page.
Since the `@ballot_referer` variable was only set in the lines
controller, it didn't work when we accessed the ballot page without
adding a line.
Note it still doesn't work if we access the ballot page directly by
entering the URL in the browser's address bar.
Even if we usually only access these pages for the current budget, that
might not always be the case, and now that we've unified budget landing
pages, there's no point in them pointing to the index anymore.
There was a big difference between the current budget and a specific
budget landing page. This didn't really make too much sense. Also, it
was not possible to know how a draft participatory budget will look
before it was published.
By unifying those two views now they will look quite similar and it
will be possible for administrators to preview any draft budget and to
know how the budget will look like before actually publishing it.
It was added because a test failed without turbolinks. However, writing
the test so it doesn't update the database at the same time the browser
is doing a request also solves the problem and makes the test more
robust.
Now it's easier to change the investments filter. Previously we had to
go back to the budget index page, change the filter there, and then
select one heading.
Now the links to change the current filter in the budget index page
aren't needed anymore.
There was duplication between the index and the show views, and when we
changed the design of the phases in the index we forgot to change the
subheader in the other page as well.
There were some issues using `.budget.expanded`, like a link having that
class which would force us to a `:not(.button)` selector or similar,
making the CSS more complex.
