We're going to add some constraints in the routes file, and if we add a
`resolve` clause inside a constraints block, we get an error saying that
"The resolve method can't be used inside a routes scope block" when
starting the application.
As far as possible I think the code is clearer if we use CRUD actions
rather than custom actions. This will make it easier to add the action
to remove votes in the next commit.
Note that we are adding this line as we need to validate it that a vote
can be created on a debate by the current user:
```authorize! :create, Vote.new(voter: current_user, votable: @debate)```
We have done it this way and not with the following code as you might
expect, as this way two votes are created instead of one.
```load_and_authorize_resource through: :debate, through_association: :votes_for```
This line tries to load the resource @debate and through the association
"votes_for" it tries to create a new vote associated to that debate.
Therefore a vote is created when trying to authorise the resource and
then another one in the create action, when calling @debate.vote_by (which
is called by @debate.register_vote).
The only view that linked to this action was never used and so it was
deleted in commit 0bacd5baf.
Since now the proposals controller is the only one place rendering the
`shared/map` partial, we're moving it to the proposals views.
The `legislation_proposals#index` action was never used because it used
the same URL as `legislation_processes#proposals`.
In commit 702bfec24 we removed the view, but we forgot to remove the
controller action, the route, and some partials which were rendered from
the index view.
It was removed in commit 128a8164 because we hadn't reviewed it nor
tested it properly. We're now adding it again, fixing the issues we've
found while reviewing.
In the past, we couldn't use `polymorphic_path` in many places. For
instance, `polymorphic_path(budget, investment)` would return
`budget_budget_investment_path`, while in our routes we had defined
`budget_investment_path`.
With the `resolve` method, introduced in Rails 5.1, we can use symbols
to define we want it to use `investment` instead of `budget_investment`.
It also works with nested resources, so now we can write
`polymorphic_path(investment)`.
This makes the code for `resource_hierarchy_for` almost impossible to
understand. I reached this result after having a look at the internals
of the `resolve` method in order to get its results and then remove the
symbols we include.
Note using this method will not make admin routes compatible with
`polymorphic_path`. Quoting from the Rails documentation:
> This custom behavior only applies to simple polymorphic URLs where a
> single model instance is passed and not more complicated forms, e.g:
> [example showing admin routes won't work]
Also note that now the `admin_polymorphic_path` method will not work for
every model due to inconsistencies in our admin routes. For instance, we
define `groups` and `budget_investments`; we should either use the
`budget_` prefix in all places or remove it everywhere. Right now the
code only works for items with the prefix; it isn't a big deal because
we never call it with an item without the prefix.
Finally, for unknown reasons some routing tests fail if we use
`polymorphic_path`, so we need to redefine that method in those tests
and force the `only_path: true` option.
This feature wasn't properly tested nor reviewed, and after reviewing
several pull requests with a similar status and considering this pull
request is related to the public area of the web, we've decided to
remove it before releasing version 1.1.
This commit reverts commit 4f50e67a.
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
