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`.
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! :)
When configuring phases in a process, we were validating the start date
or the end date is present, the other date is present too.
However, in other parts of the application we were checking whether a
phase is enabled and then assumed its dates were present if the phase
was enabled. However, we weren't validating this behavior, so it was
possible to enable a phase and leaving its dates blank, causing the
application to crash.
So, as suggested by Alberto, we're changing the validation rule so
phase dates are mandatory when a phase is enabled.
With this rule, the old validation rules are not necessary. I've
considered leaving them in order to avoid database inconsistencies.
However, I realized records having a disabled phase with its start and
end dates have always been valid. This means applications checking for
the presence of these dates instead of checking whether the phase is
enabled have never worked properly.
We don't have to change the logic anywhere else because as mentioned we
were already checking phases are enabled before using their dates.
In order to ensure compatibility with existing CONSUL installations, we
disabled all settings related to SDG. However, we also made it much
harder to enable SDG globally on the site, since administrators first
had to enable the SDG feature and then enable it for each process.
Most people will expect SDG is enabled for all processes once they
enable the SDG feature, so that's what we're doing. They can of course
disable specific processes should they wish to do so.
Although it wasn't a real security concern because we were only calling
a `find` method based on the user input, it's a good practice to avoid
using constants based on user parameters.
Since we don't use the `find` method anymore but we still need to check
the associated record exists, we're changing the `followable` validation
in the `Follow` model to do exactly that.
Since the :post_started_at and :post_ended_at fields are of type Date, we check
with Date.current and not with Time.current.
This change has been caused because some test suites were failing
(https://github.com/consul/consul/runs/2170798218?check_suite_focus=true).
The code we had was causing the banners to be available a few hours earlier
or later than they should be depending on the time zone of the application.
In this page we will render a list of clickable Goals icons that will show their
targets and related local targets
Co-authored-by: Senen <senenrodero@gmail.com>
Note we're making the validation rule dynamic so it's affected by the
way we stub the constant in the tests to emulate data created in old
applications.
Co-Authored-By: Javi Martín <javim@elretirao.net>
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.
This way we can simplify the code and don't have to rely on `.try`
statements which are confusing and so we don't allow them in the
`Rails/SafeNavigation` Rubocop rule.
Now we check the given record or name is a relatable instance or class
to avoid trying to render goals for records which don't have a goals
association.
Note for now we are ignoring the case where we pass a controller_path
for an unsupported class (for example, `legislation/proposals` or
`budgets/headings`) because we never use it. We might need to revisit
this case in the future.
Co-Authored-By: Javi Martín <javim@elretirao.net>
We noticed there was a performance issue while browsing the SDG
Management section and when one of our tests started failing sometimes
because the request to the relations#index controller took too long.
The issue proved to be `SDG::Target#<=>`. This method calls `.goal` for
each target, meaning we were generating 169 database queries when
sorting all targets.
So we're comparing codes directly to minimize the number of database
queries and improve performance. Requests to the relations index take
now less than third of the time they used to take.
