For the HashAlignment rule, we're using the default `key` style (keys
are aligned and values aren't) instead of the `table` style (both keys
and values are aligned) because, even if we used both in the
application, we used the `key` style a lot more. Furthermore, the
`table` style looks strange in places where there are both very long and
very short keys and sometimes we weren't even consistent with the
`table` style, aligning some keys without aligning other keys.
Ideally we could align hashes to "either key or table", so developers
can decide whether keeping the symmetry of the code is worth it in a
case-per-case basis, but Rubocop doesn't allow this option.
Since targets didn't have a title but only a long description, every
form allowing to select targets was pretty much unusable: we either
displayed just the code or the whole description.
Now, with a concise title, it's easier to find and select the desired
target.
The titles have been copied from The Global Goals page [1].
Note we're using the `short_title` I18n key for the `title` method and
the `long_title` I18n key for the `long_title` method. We can't use
`title` as I18n key instead of `short_title` because it would affect
existing translations.
[1] https://www.globalgoals.org/
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.
This is similar to what we do with investments, which belong to a heading
but also belong to a budget. In our case, the reason is we've been asked
to add local targets which belong to a goal but are not related to any
existing target.
Even though we're not implementing that case right now, we're adding the
relation so we don't have to add data migrations in the future.
