The background wasn't expanding to the edge of the page because we
forgot to do this when we did the same thing for proposals and debates
in commit 4c47eab60.
When using the advanced search in the debates and proposals sections, we
were not displaying the search term in the search results summary.
However, we were displaying it when using the advanced search in the
investments section.
Now we're doing the same thing everywhere.
When customizing CONSUL, one of the most common actions is adding a new
field to a form.
This requires modifying the permitted/allowed parameters. However, in
most cases, the method returning these parameters returned an instance
of `ActionController::Parameters`, so adding more parameters to it
wasn't easy.
So customizing the code required copying the method returning those
parameters and adding the new ones. For example:
```
def something_params
params.require(:something).permit(
:one_consul_attribute,
:another_consul_attribute,
:my_custom_attribute
)
end
```
This meant that, if the `something_params` method changed in CONSUL, the
customization of this method had to be updated as well.
So we're extracting the logic returning the parameters to a method which
returns an array. Now this code can be customized without copying the
original method:
```
alias_method :consul_allowed_params, :allowed_params
def allowed_params
consul_allowed_params + [:my_custom_attribute]
end
```
Since we were creating a new answer in the form, we weren't getting the
errors associated to the answer the administrator was trying to create,
and so we were skipping the test.
Using the answer which contains the information about validation errors
fixes the issue and so we don't have to skip the tests.
The map feature was never implemented for debates (only for proposals
and budget investments) and it was crashing for debates because the page
didn't load the geozones. And we don't have a "geozone" field in the
debates form either.
So we're removing the map page alongside its (pending implementation)
tests.
We are use a display: block style for labels containing check boxes inside
them, and the label has a width of 100%.
This means that clicking on the blank space on the right of the label text
will check/uncheck the checkbox. To avoid this behaviour we modify the
"display" attribute of the labels.
In order to prevent unexpected behaviour in terms_of_service form labels,
we add specific css for this case when define a checkbox within the
.actions class.
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.
There are CONSUL installations where the validations CONSUL offers by
default don't make sense because they're using a different business
logic. Removing these validations in a custom model was hard, and that's
why in many cases modifying the original CONSUL models was an easier
solution.
Since modifying the original CONSUL models makes the code harder to
maintain, we're now providing a way to easily skip validations in a
custom model. For example, in order to skip the price presence
validation in the Budget::Heading model, we could write a model in
`app/models/custom/budget/heading.rb`:
```
require_dependency Rails.root.join("app", "models", "budget", "heading").to_s
class Budget::Heading
skip_validation :price, :presence
end
```
In order to skip validation on translatable attributes (defined with
`validates_translation`), we have to use the
`skip_translation_validation` method; for example, to skip the proposal
title presence validation:
```
require_dependency Rails.root.join("app", "models", "proposal").to_s
class Proposal
skip_translation_validation :title, :presence
end
```
Co-Authored-By: taitus <sebastia.roig@gmail.com>
We did a similar change in commit 47925fbab, and we were getting a
warning in Rails 6.0:
DEPRECATION WARNING: render file: should be given the absolute path to a
file
Since using `render file:` would ignore views in custom folders, we're
using `render template:` instead.
The `only:` key does not apply to model callbacks. It was added in commit 1077e25b2, probably by accident.
Using this key raises an error in Rails 6.0.
When there was a custom JavaScript file, we weren't loading the original
one, meaning that, in order to customize it, it was necessary to copy
the whole original file and then changing it.
Now we're loading both the original and the custom file, so the custom
file can simply add more functions or overwrite the ones we'd like to
customize, without copying the whole file.
Existing copies of original files will still overwrite the whole file
and won't be affected.
We were using this hack in order to allow `File.new` attachments in
tests files. However, we can use the `fixture_file_upload` helper
instead.
Just like it happened with `file_fixture`, this helper method doesn't
work in fixtures, so in this case we're using `Rack::Test::UploadedFile`
instead.
We were using custom rules because of some issues with Paperclip. These
rules work fine, but since we're already using the file_validators gem,
we might as well simplify the code a little bit.
The code is based on what's generated using CKEditor's code generator.
We're doing one minor change to the `Ckeditor::Backend::ActiveStorage`
module; we're assigning the data in a `before_validation` instead of a
`before_save` callback. Validations with `file_validations` didn't work
otherwise; it looks like this backend was written with
`active_storage_validations` in mind [1].
Note we don't need to update the `name` column in the attachments table
because, when using Active Storage, CKEditor uses both `data` (as
attribute accessor) and `storage_data` (as attachment attribute).
[1] https://github.com/galetahub/ckeditor/blob/f9e48420ccb6dc/lib/generators/ckeditor/templates/active_record/active_storage/ckeditor/picture.rb#L4
Since we're going to remove Paperclip and Active Storage doesn't provide
any validations, we have to either write our own validation rules or use
a different gem.
We're using the file_validators gem instead of the
`active_storage_validations` gem because the latter doesn't support
proc/lambda objects in size and content type definitions. We need to use
them because in our case these values depend on settings stored in the
database.
Just like we did with regular attachments, we're moving the logic to
generate URLs out of the model.
Note we're changing the `image_path_for` helper method in order to
return a `polymorphic_path` because sometimes it's used in combination
with `favicon_link_tag`, and `favicon_link_tag` doesn't automatically
generate a polymorphic URL when given an `ActiveStorage::Attachment`
record.
This fixes a few issues we've had for years.
First, when attaching an image and then sending a form with validation
errors, the image preview would not be rendered when the form was
displayed once again. Now it's rendered as expected.
Second, when attaching an image, removing it, and attaching a new
one, browsers were displaying the image preview of the first one. That's
because Paperclip generated the same URL from both files (as they both
had the same hash data and prefix). Browsers usually cache images and
render the cached image when getting the same URL.
Since now we're storing each image in a different Blob, the images have
different URLs and so the preview of the second one is correctly
displayed.
Finally, when users downloaded a document, they were getting files with
a very long hexadecimal hash as filename. Now they get the original
filename.
This way we fix a bug we mentioned in commit 930bb753c which caused
links to documents to be broken when editing their title because the
title was used to generate the URL of the document.
Note we're still using Paperclip to render cached attachments because
this is the only case where we store files with just Paperclip and not
Active Storage.
With Active Storage, we render attachments just like any other resource,
using `polymorphic_path`. Paperclip included the `url` method in the
model; since the model doesn't have access to the request parameters
(like the host), this was inconvenient because it wasn't possible to
generate absolute URLs with Paperclip.
In order to simplify the code and make it similar to the way we used
Paperclip, we're adding a `variant` method accepting the name of a
variant and returning the variant.
Defining a behavior on hover means making it different for people using
a keyboard or a touchscreen (most of the population, nowadays).
In this case, we had an accessibility issue where the message wouldn't
disappear once it appeared. That meant that, after tabbing through all
the links and buttons in, for instance, the debates index, the page
would be filled with "participation not allowed" messages, and in order
to see the information about how many people have voted, reloading the
page was required.
For touchscreen users the behavior was similar to what we get on hover,
although we've found some inconsistencies when trying to support several
elements on the same page.
We think in proposals it makes sense to hide the "support" button when
users click on it, and the same applies to the buttonsto support and
vote investment projects. However, we aren't hiding the buttons to
agree/disagree with a debate in order to keep the information about the
current number of people agreeing and disagreeing visible.
Note we're removing some support spec methods because after these
changes the duplication isn't as obvious as it was in the past.
We were using the same logic six times regarding when we should show a
"participation not allowed" message. Since we're going to change the
current behavior, we're unifying the logic in one place so the changes
will be easier.
Hovering over the votes showed a "participation not allowed" message
which was annoying when scrolling with the browser or simply moving the
mouse around the page. Furthermore, it hid the information about the
number of votes, links to show/collapse replies, ...
We're planning to change the behavior of all the "participation not
allowed" messages in order to show them on click instead of showing them
on hover (just like it's done on touchscreens). In the case of comments,
supports, however, there's very limited space in the part showing the
number of supports for comments, so adding this message without breaking
the layout is challenging.
So, for now, we're simply redirecting unauthenticated users to the login
page. If find an easy way to implement a better user interface in the
future to display the "participation not allowed" message, we might
change this behaviour.
This message is only shown in the `show` action, so it's shown at most
once in the whole page, so it doesn't take up too much space and it
isn't as overwhelming as if we were showing it on the index page, once
per debate.
We're only showing it when there are closed options, though, since
there's already a message to sign in to comment when the question
accepts open answers.
Note we're using the in-favor HTML class instead of the in_favor class
so we're consistent with our conventions for HTML classes and because we
use the in-favor class in similar places.
Also note the styles of the legislation process annotations/comments
buttons is now similar to the styles in the other sections. Previously,
the colors didn't have enough contrast and there was a very strange
margin between the "thumbs up" icon and the number of people agreeing
(that margin wasn't present between the "thumbs down" icon and the
number of people disagreeing).
