Set cookie duration to 365 days based on the AEPD's cookie usage guidelines.
Note from the document: "Cookies with a duration of up to 24 months are
considered acceptable as long as they are periodically updated."
Reference: https://www.aepd.es/guias/guia-cookies.pdf
Create cookie consent "all" when accept all cookies
Set cookie duration to 365 days based on the AEPD's cookie usage guidelines.
Note from the document: "Cookies with a duration of up to 24 months are
considered acceptable as long as they are periodically updated."
Reference: https://www.aepd.es/guias/guia-cookies.pdf
Set cookie duration to 365 days based on the AEPD's cookie usage guidelines.
Note from the document: "Cookies with a duration of up to 24 months are
considered acceptable as long as they are periodically updated."
Reference: https://www.aepd.es/guias/guia-cookies.pdf
Allow enabling from settings admin section.
Note that we set the z-index to 20 in order to will be greater than
the others z-index elements in the application like <header> on
mobile devices.
According to the GeoJSON specification [1]:
> * A linear ring is a closed LineString with four or more positions.
> * The first and last positions are equivalent, and they MUST contain
> identical values; their representation SHOULD also be identical.
> (...)
> * For type "Polygon", the "coordinates" member MUST be an array of
> linear ring coordinate arrays.
Note that, for simplicity, right now we aren't checking whether the
coordinates are defined counterclockwise for exterior rings and
clockwise for interior rings, which is what the specification expects.
[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7946#section-3.1.6
Note we're adding a `name` property to the geozones investments sidebar
map even if we don't render the geozones in the map, in order to
simplify the JavaScript function `geozoneLayers`.
We're reworking the format validation to correctly interpret feature
collection, feature, and geometry, according to RFC 7946 [1].
Since Leaflet interprets GeoJSON format, we're rendering the GeoJSON as
a layer instead of as a set of points. For that, we're normalizing the
GeoJSON to make sure it contains either a Feature or a
FeatureCollection. We're also adding the Leaflet images to the assets
path so the markers used for point geometries are rendered correctly.
Note we no longer allow a GeoJSON containing a geometry but not a
defined type. Since there might be invalid GeoJSON in existing Consul
Democracy databases, we're normalizing these existing geometry objects
to be part of a feature object.
We're also wrapping the outline points in a FeatureCollection object
because most of the large GIS systems eg ArcGIS, QGIS export geojson as
a complete FeatureCollection.
[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7946
Co-authored-by: Javi Martín <javim@elretirao.net>
The `show_caption_for?` method was used to determine whether to check for the
presence of a `figcaption` element, but its only purpose was to skip the check
when the factory was `:budget.
The reason we skip the `figcaption` check for `:budget` is that it is the only case
where the test is verifying the form's edit page, where displaying a `figcaption` does
not make sense.
This method was removed as its logic was redundant or unnecessary:
- For "Proposal" new:
After creating a proposal, we are redirected to the "created" page, where the text
"Not now, go to my proposal" is not present, leading to a constant
`rescue Capybara::ElementNotFound`.
Instead, the "created" page shows a preview of how the proposal will look when
published and a link saying "No, I want to publish the proposal". Since the click's
purpose was to navigate to the proposal's "show" page, and this can already be
verified on the "created" page, no additional handling is needed for this case.
- For "Proposal" edit:
After updating the proposal, we are directly redirected to the proposal's "show" page,
so no click_link logic is necessary here either.
- For "Budget":
The redirection is now handled directly with:
`visit edit_admin_budget_path(imageable) if factory == :budget`.
In the imageable_attach_new_file method used in this tests the:
> expect(page).to have_css ".loading-bar.errors"
is already being checked.
Therefore, to leave only the line:
> imageable_attach_new_file(file_fixture("logo_header.png"), false)
in the test, since there is another test that verifies it,
I think we can remove the test altogether.
In the imageable_attach_new_file method used in these tests the:
> expect(page).to have_css ".loading-bar.complete"
is already being checked, so there is no need to verify it twice.
This is the only it_behaves_like "nested imageable" call where the has_many_images parameter is set to true.
Previously, the shared example skipped or altered expectations based on this parameter. Now, this behavior is
moved to the factory level (:future_poll_question_option).
Since this is an administrative section, a related administrator is created for the user.
Make `path`, `fill_resource_method_name`, `submit_button`, and
`imageable_success_notice` dynamic based on the factory.
Also adjusted the user. The proposals no longer require the user to be an
administrator but do require them to be a level 2 user.
Note that we are adding the Style/CaseLikeIf rubocop rule.
Removed `imageable_path_arguments`, `has_many_images`, and `management` parameters
because they are not used by budgets.
Hardcoded `path`, `fill_resource_method_name`, `submit_button`, and
`imageable_success_notice`parameters for budgets. These remain fixed for now until dynamic
values are required in the next commits.
We're using the `aria-label` attribute instead of a label because this
is a page where only one field is rendered and the text of the label is
the same as the text of the <h1> tag.
We're using `aria-label` instead of `aria-labelledby` because the former
is supported by Capybara.
We were using one label for both date selectors, but it wasn't
associated with any of them.
So we're now rendering one label per control and, just like we only show
one of these date selectors at a time, we're only showing one label at a
time.
The default `date_select` used in fields presents an accessibility
issue, because in generates three select controls but only one label.
That means that there are two controls without a label.
So we're using a date field instead. This type is field is supported by
about 99% of the browsers, and we've already got JavaScript code
converting this field to a jQuery UI datepicker in case the browser
doesn't support date fields.
Note that, since we no longer need to parse the three date fields into
one, we can simplify the code in both the models and the tests.
Another slight improvement is that, previously, we couldn't restrict the
month and day controls in order to set the minimum date, so the maximum
selectable date was always the 31st of December of the year set by the
minimum age setting. As seen in the component test, now that we use only
one field, we can set a specific date as the maximum one.
We reduce code duplication thanks to that, and make it easier
to change this field.
Note that there was one place where the "16.years" value was
hardcoded. We're moving the test for this case to the
component and changing it so the test doesn't use the default
age.
We're also removing the redundant helper method that had the
same code as a method in the User class which is called
everywhere else.
All the expectations checked after the `click_link "Check my votes"`
action were already true before clicking the link, meaning the test
could finish before the request did.
It's possible that this request caused a test run 8274, job 2 [1], since
a multitenancy test failed and a possible cause could have been
simultaneous requests to both a tenant subdomain and the application's
main domain. The failure was:
```
1) Multitenancy PostgreSQL extensions work for tenants
Failure/Error: expect(page).to have_content "Proposal created
successfully."
expected to find text "Proposal created successfully." in
"Language: \n
\nEnglish\nDeutsch\nEspañol\nFrançais\nNederlands\nPortuguês
brasileiro\n中文\n Notifications\nMy content\nMy account\nSign
out\nDebates\nYou are in\nProposals\nVoting\nCollaborative
legislation\nParticipatory budgeting\nSDG\nHelp\nProposals\nCreate new
proposal\nHow do citizen proposals work?\nRecommendations for creating a
proposal\nDo not use capital letters for the proposal title or for whole
sentences. On the internet, this is considered shouting. And nobody
likes being shouted at.\nAny proposal or comment suggesting illegal
action will be deleted, as well as those intending to sabotage the
debate spaces. Anything else is allowed.\nEnjoy this space and the
voices that fill it. It belongs to you too.\n×\n1 error prevented this
Proposal from being saved.\nPlease check the marked fields to know how
to correct them:\nREQUIRED FIELDS\nProposal title\nProposal
summary\n(maximum 200 characters)\ntsvector for María the
Martian\nProposal text\n Format\n ◢\n If you are human, ignore
this field\nOPTIONAL FIELDS\nExternal video URL\nYou may add a link to
YouTube or Vimeo\nDescriptive image\nYou can upload one image of
following content types: jpg, up to 1 MB.\nAdd image\nDocuments\nYou can
upload up to a maximum of 3 documents of following content types: pdf,
up to 3 MB per file.\nAdd new document\nTags\nTag this proposal. You can
choose from proposed categories or add your own\nCategories\n\nFull name
of the person submitting the proposal\n(individually or as
representative of a collective; will not be displayed publically)\ncan't
be blank, is too short (minimum is 6 characters)\nSustainable
Development Goals and Targets\nYou can choose one or several SDGs
aligned with your citizen proposal\nGoals and Targets\nYou can introduce
the code of a specific goal/target or a text to find one. For more
information visit the SDG help page.\nI agree to the Privacy Policy and
the Terms and conditions of use\nOpen government\nThis portal uses the
CONSUL DEMOCRACY application which is open-source
software.\nParticipation\nDecide how to shape the city you want to live
in.\nCONSUL DEMOCRACY, 2024 Privacy Policy Terms and conditions of use
Accessibility"
```
Note the `can't be blank, is too short` reference to the responsible
name, which is only checked when user verification is not skipped. In
this test, the `mars` tenant skips the verification while the default
tenant does not. The mentioned possibility of simultaneous requests
might have caused the issue.
[1] https://github.com/consuldemocracy/consuldemocracy/actions/runs/11747689680/job/32730131655
Note that adding the labels broke the layout because the button was no
longer aligned with the fields, so we're now using a flex layout.
Since we're using labels, we no longer need a placeholder (which wasn't
very informative, by the way) in the text field.
The text for the unfeasible checkbox wasn't correctly defined as a
label, while the fields to search investments and select the heading
weren't intuitive since their purpose wasn't obvious.
This way it'll be easier for people using screen readers to know which
element the checkbox is related to.
Note that we're using the `aria-label` attribute because it makes
testing with Capybara easier than using the `aria-labelledby` attribute.
The only exception are the comments, since comments don't have a title
and there isn't a proper label for them. In this case, we're using the
title of the associated commentable as the label; we might change it in
the future since there might be many comments for the same commentable.
We were rendering one label and many textarea fields for that label.
This meant that, when switching to a different language, the label
wasn't correctly associated with the textarea.
So we're now rendering one label for each textarea. We could use
`aria-label` or `aria-labelledby` instead, but using a label offers some
advantages like the fact that clicking on the label makes the textarea
take the focus.
The absence of labels in these controls made them hard to use,
particularly for people who use screen readers.
Note we're removing the "Choose language" prompt, since we always
automatically choose a language and not choosing a language doesn't
really make sense. The only scenario where the prompt was used took
place when all languages had been removed but, in that case, the "Choose
language" prompt was misleading because there were no languages to
choose from.
We were using `check "Valuation finished"` everywhere except here.
This way it's easier to realize, while reading the test, that we're
interacting with a checkbox and not a link or a button.
As mentioned in commit 5311daadf, there are several reasons to use
buttons in these situations. And, as mentioned in the previous commits,
using buttons instead of links for actions requiring confirmation will
help us test for accessibility issues.
As mentioned in commit 5311daadf, there are several reasons to use
buttons in these situations. And, as mentioned in the previous commits,
using buttons instead of links for actions requiring confirmation will
help us test for accessibility issues.
