This is consistent with the component for balloting stats. We're about
to change both components, and the changes are easier to follow if
they're similar.
We're also using consistent names in methods.
To get the heading where a user voted, we were relying on the
`balloted_heading_id` field.
Our guess is this was done so the total number of users is the same as
the sum of users who voted on a heading. That is, if 2000 people voted
just on the "All city" heading, 1000 voted just on the "North district"
heading, and 500 people voted on both, instead of showing "3500 people
voted in total, 2500 voted in all city, 1500 voted in north district",
we show something like "3500 people voted in total, 2250 voted in all
city, and 1250 voted in north district".
However, this approach has some disadvantages.
The first disadvantage is, the stats aren't correct. In the case above,
2500 voted on the "All city heading", so the statistics for this heading
don't show reality.
The second one is we weren't considering the last heading where users
voted inside the budget being displayed, but the last heading where
users voted, period. That means that, if all the people above voted on a
later budget, the stats for the budget above would become "3500 people
voted in total, 0 voted in all city, and 0 voted in north district".
That also means we were including headings from previous budgets in the
statistics for more recent budgets when people hadn't voted on the
recent ones.
So we're removing the `balloted_heading_id` since its data is lost once
people vote on a new budget. And, in order to show the right stats and
simplify the code, we're no longer trying to add votes just to one
heading when users vote on several headings.
Co-Authored-By: Julian Nicolas Herrero <microweb10@gmail.com>
We're also moving the tests, but we're keeping one system test in order
to test the controller and the navigation to get to this page.
Note we're slightly changing the order of the methods in the component;
the order of the instance variables was `user_`, `vote_`, `vote_`,
`user_`, which was hard to follow.
We weren't showing the year when a page was created/updated, and we
were displaying the created date instead of the updated one.
Co-Authored-By: Diego Calvo <diego.calvo@enreda.coop>
We were using the same logic in four different places, so we're creating
a new class to handle that logic.
Note that I didn't find a way to delegate the `content` method to a
`Admin::TableActionsComponent`, so we're delegating the `action` method
instead. That means we need to create a method returning an
`Admin::TableActionsComponent`. We also need to cache this object;
otherwise we were getting an error when calling `actions.action` from
the `Admin::Poll::Questions::TableActionsComponent`.
Adding, modifiying, and/or deleting questions for an already started
poll is far away from being democratic and can lead to unwanted side
effects like missing votes in the results or stats.
So, from now on, only modifiying questions will be possible only if
the poll has not started yet.
The reason why we were displaying the ending date as "one second before
the actual ending" was that, when seeing that a phase ends at a date
like "2000-12-31 00:00", we might end up thinking that the phase will
finished at the midnight between December 31st and January the 1st,
while it actually ends at the midnight between December the 30th and
December the 31st.
This is particularly important because we use a date field to select the
date of a phase and if select December the 31st, it will be stored in
the database as "2000-12-31 00:00". So, instead, in this case we display
"2000-12-30 23:59", which is less confusing.
But now we're going to add support for setting a time on polls, which
means a certain poll might end at 15:30. In this case, displaying that
it ends at 15:29 doesn't make much sense.
We were displaying dates in two different formats in the same component,
leading to strange hacks like manually calling the `call` method or not
being able to use `render_inline` in the tests.
Since we're going to reuse one of these formats outside the budgets
section, we're splitting the component. We're also removing the
mentioned hacks.
While this bug was already present in the general admin search, the
combination of both search and filters was very uncommon. I've only
found this combinations in the users section, where you've got the
"erased" filter, but in this case searching for erased users doesn't
really make sense since their username and email have been deleted and
so there's nothing to find.
So the hidden content seemed to be the only affected section. However,
we're adding the field to every section so we don't have to make sure we
add it when we need it (like we did in the SDGManagement section).
In this PR (https://github.com/consul/consul/pull/4683) a new syntax was introduced
in the component specs to check that the component was not rendering.
It seems interesting to add this syntax to the rest of the cases and thus unify the way
we check that a component is not rendering.
Since the message might appear several times on the same page, it's
useful to give a bit more context. Besides, usability tests show that
when there's a group with no headings, there's no clear indication on
the page that the group is actually a group and not a heading.
We're also adding some emphasis to the group name in the "Showing
headings" message, to be consistent with the emphasis we've
added the the group name in the "No headings" message.
The buttons to create polls associated with a budget were too prominent,
appearing on the table as if they were as used as the link to manage
investments. Most CONSUL installations don't use physical booths, and
would probably wonder what that button is about.
We're moving it to a more discrete place, at the bottom of the budget
page. This way we can also split the action in two: on budgets not
having a poll, we display the button in a not-so-accessible position (at
the bottom of the page), since this button will only be used once per
budget at most. Once the poll has been created, it means this feature is
going to be used, so we display a link to manage ballots more
prominently at the top of the page. If the budget has finished the final
voting stage without creating a poll, we don't show either the link or
the button because this feature can no longer be used.
We're also adding some texts indicating what this feature is about,
since it's probably one of the least understood features in CONSUL
(probably because the interface is very confusing... but that's a
different story).
Since now from the budget page we can access every feature related to
the budget, we can remove the "preview" action from the budgets index
table, since this feature isn't that useful for budgets once they're
published.
Now the budgets table doesn't take as much space as it used to, although
it's still too wide to be handled properly on devices with a small
screen.
Since managing investments is a very common action, with this link
administrators won't have to go back to the index page to manage
investments; they can access it from either the budgets index page or
the budget page.
Since now the links we've got on the budget page are similar to the ones
we've got in the index page table, we're styling them in a similar way.
We're also fixing a small typo en the investments path; it works exactly
the same way as it used to, but passing `budget` instead of `budget_id:
budget.id` is shorter and more consistent with what we do in other
places.
Both the calculate winners and delete actions benefit from some kind of
hint.
The "calculate winners" hint informs administrators that results won't
be publicly available unless the "show results" option is enabled.
The delete action was redirecting with an error message when the budget
couldn't be deleted; IMHO it's better to disable it and inform
administrators why it's disabled. Alternatively we could remove the
button completely; however, users might be looking for a way to delete a
budget and wouldn't find any hint about it.
We're now removing the "Delete" action from the budgets index table,
since most of the time it isn't possible to delete a budget and so the
action takes up space and we get little gain in return. We could keep
the "Delete" icon just for budgets which can be deleted; however, the
alignment of the table rows would suffer, making it harder to find the
intended action.
We currently don't have any links in the public area pointing to past
budgets, so having links in the admin section to both the budget and its
results seemed a bit redundant. We're going to add more links to the
budget actions soon, so we need to make room for them; otherwise we'll
have too many.
We're also changing the "Preview" text for a published budget. Since the
budget is already public, we aren't previewing it anymore but simply
viewing it.
And, to be consistent with the "See results" link, we're opening the
"Preview" link in the current tab. Opening links in a new tab is
generally a bad idea because takes control away from users, breaks the
back button and makes navigation particularly hard on mobile browsers.
It could be argued that in this case it's useful when users are editing
the budget in one tab and previewing it in another one, so we might add
this behavior back as long as we make it clear that the link opens in a
new tab [1].
[1] https://www.nngroup.com/articles/new-browser-windows-and-tabs/
Calculating winners before the balloting is over is useless (results
aren't published at that point) and can lead to the wrong results since
users are still voting and results might change.
And we were showing the button to calculate winners even when a budget
had finished. However, in this case the action to calculate winners did
nothing, which resulted in administrators seeing nothing happened after
pressing the button.
Before, users needed to navigate to the list of groups in order to
add, edit or delete a group.
Also, they need to navigate to the list of groups first, and then to
the list of headings for that group in order to add, edit or delete a
heading.
Now, it's possible to do all these actions for any group or heading
from the participatory budget view to bring simplicity and to reduce
the number of clicks from a user perspective.
Co-Authored-By: Javi Martín <javim@elretirao.net>
In the past it would have been confusing to add a way to directly
enable/disable a phase in the phases table because it was in the middle
of the form. So we would have had next to each other controls that don't
do anything until the form is sent and controls which modify the
database immediately. That's why we couldn't add the checkboxes we used
when using the wizard.
Now the phases aren't on the same page as the budget form, so we can
edit them independently. We're using a switch, so it's consistent with
the way we enable/disable features. We could have used checkboxes, but
with checkboxes, users expect they aren't changing anything until they
click on a button to send the form, so we'd have to add a button, and it
might be missed since we're going to add "buttons" for headings and
groups to this page which won't send a form but will be links.
Since we're changing the element with JavaScript after an AJAX call, we
need a way to find the button we're changing. The easiest way is adding
an ID attribute to all admin actions buttons/links.
Having links in the middle of a form distracts users from the task of
filling in the form, and following a link before submitting the form
will mean whatever has been filled in is lost.
And the budgets form is already very long and hard to fill in. Having
the phases table in the middle of it made it even harder. And, since
we're planning to add the option to manage groups and headings from the
same page, it's better to have a dedicated page for the form.
In component tests, the `within` method is actually an alias to RSpec's
`be_within` matcher, which is used to test numeric ranges. That meant
the tests always passed, even when there were bugs on the page.
In order to use `within` in component tests, we have to use
`page.within`. However, that also fails, since there's no such method
for `Capybara::Node::Simple'` objects, which are used in component
tests.
So we're using `page.find` instead.
See also pull request 945 in https://github.com/github/view_component
This way it's easier to test; changing it will also be easier.
During my experiments I made a mistake which wasn't covered by the test
suite. We're adding a test for this case.
Note we're using `i18n_content` in the component instead of `content`
because there's already a `content` method provided by ViewComponent.
We were using buttons with the "Enable" and "Disable" texts to
enable/disable settings. However, when machine learning settings were
introduced in commit 4d27bbeba, a switch control was introduced to
enable/disable them.
In order to keep the interface consistent, we're now using switch
controls in other sections where settings are enabled/disabled. We can
even use the same code in the machine learning settings as well.
We're also removing the confirmation dialog to enable/disable a setting,
since the dialog is really annoying when changing several settings and
this action can be undone immediately. The only setting which might need
a confirmation is the "Skip user verification" one; we might add it in
the future. Removing the confirmation here doesn't make things worse,
though; the "Are you sure?" confirmation dialog was also pretty useless
and users would most likely blindly accept it.
Note Capybara doesn't support finding a button by its `aria-labelledby`
atrribute. Ideally we'd write `click_button "Participatory budgeting"`
instead of `click_button "Yes"`, since from the user's point of view the
"Yes" or "No" texts aren't button labels but indicators of the status of
the setting. This makes the code a little brittle since tests would pass
even if the element referenced by `aria-labelledby` didn't exist.
By default, Rails disables submit inputs (<input type="submit">) when
they're pressed so we avoid a double-submission when users click the
button twice.
However, Rails does not disable submit buttons (<button type="submit">)
when they're pressed. This means there's a chance users might press the
button several times. Even if most our table actions are idempotent, it
might cause certain issues. For instance, pressing the "Delete" button
twice means the second request might raise an
`ActiveRecord::RecordNotFound` exception.
Disabling the button also gives feedback to users, letting them know
they've correctly clicked the button.
Links acting like buttons have a few disadvantages.
First, screen readers will announce them as "links". Screen reader users
usually associate links with "things that get you somewhere" and buttons
with "things that perform an action". So when something like "Delete,
link" is announced, they'll probably think this is a link which will
take them to another page where they can delete a record.
Furthermore, the URL of the link for the "destroy" action might be the
same as the URL for the "show" action (only one is accessed with a
DELETE request and the other one with a GET request). That means screen
readers could announce the link like "Delete, visited link", which is
very confusing.
They also won't work when opening links in a new tab, since opening
links in a new tab always results in a GET request to the URL the link
points to.
Finally, submit buttons work without JavaScript enabled, so they'll work
even if the JavaScript in the page hasn't loaded (for whatever reason).
For all these reasons (and probably many more), using a button to send
forms is IMHO superior to using links.
There's one disadvantage, though. Using `button_to` we create a <form>
tag, which means we'll generate invalid HTML if the table is inside
another form. If we run into this issue, we need to use `button_tag`
with a `form` attribute and then generate a form somewhere else inside
the HTML (with `content_for`).
Note we're using `button_to` with a block so it generates a <button>
tag. Using it in a different way the text would result in an <input />
tag, and input elements can't have pseudocontent added via CSS.
The following code could be a starting point to use the `button_tag`
with a `form` attribute. One advantage of this approach is screen
readers wouldn't announce "leaving form" while navigating through these
buttons. However, it doesn't work in Internet Explorer.
```
ERB:
<% content_for(:hidden_content, form_tag(path, form_options) {}) %>
<%= button_tag text, button_options %>
Ruby:
def form_id
path.gsub("/", "_")
end
def form_options
{ id: form_id, method: options[:method] }
end
def button_options
html_options.except(:method).merge(form: form_id)
end
Layout:
<%= content_for :hidden_content %> # Right before the `</body>`
```
The message "Are you sure?" is usually followed by blindly clicking
"Yes" without really thinking about what one is doing. So we're
including a bit more information about what's about to happen. That way
it's more likely users will notice it when they accidentally click the
wrong button.
Ideally we would offer the option to undo every common action and then
we wouldn't have to ask for confirmation. But since that isn't the case,
for now we're adding a better confirmation message.
Note we're removing the `resource_name` parameter from the translation
to confirm the action of deleting a record. The reason is, in many
languages it only makes sense to add the model name when it's got an
associated article, and, unlike in English (where "the" is used for
every word), that article is different depending on the noun it's
related to. So we'd have to provide a translation like "name with
article, when singular" for every model.
The complexity of these translations could scalate quickly. And, given
the context, IMHO it isn't essential to add the resouce name. When we're
in the proposals index and there's a proposal named "Improve XYZ", and
we click on "Delete" and see a message saying "This action will delete
XYZ", it is implied that XYZ is a proposal.
So instead we're changing the message so it works for every record with
no need of noun-dependent articles.
This way screen reader users will know which record they're going to
access when focusing on a link to a certain action. Otherwise they'd
hear something like "Edit, link", and they wouldn't know which record
they'll end up editing if they follow the link.
This way it will be easier to change the behavior of all table actions,
like adding ARIA attributes. In the past, when we changed the behavior
of the `link_to` method, we had to change all table action classes.
We're not adding the rule because it would apply the current line length
rule of 110 characters per line. We still haven't decided whether we'll
keep that rule or make lines shorter so they're easier to read,
particularly when vertically splitting the editor window.
So, for now, I'm applying the rule to lines which are about 90
characters long.
As mentioned in commit 5214d89c8, using a `<select>` tag which
automatically submits a form on change has a few accessibility issues,
particularly for keyboard users who might accidentally submit the form
while browsing the options.
So we're adding a submit button and removing the "submit on change"
behavior.
Note that, while `<select>` tags have their own usability issues,
alternatives in this case are not obvious because the number of existing
polls could be very low (zero, for instance) or very high (dozens, if
the application has been used for years).
I thought of using a `<datalist>` tag with a regular text input. The
problem here is we don't want to send the name of the poll to the server
(as we would with a `<datalist>` tag); we want to send the ID of the
poll.
Maybe we could add an automplete field instead, providing a similar
funcionality. However, for now we're keeping it simple. This poll
questions page isn't even accessible through the admin menu since commit
83e8d603, so right now anything we change here will be pretty much
useless.
The word "budget" in the "Preview budget" link is redundant.
On the other hand, the words "Manage", Edit" and "Admin" are not
really necessary in my humble opinion. Just like in the admin
navigation menu we use "Participatory budgets" instead of "Manage
Participatory budgets", the fact that we're going to manage or
admin or edit something can be deduced from the fact that we're in
the admin section.
Besides, it isn't clear to me why we use "Manage" for projects,
"Edit" for heading groups and "Admin" for ballots. The differences
between these three concepts might be too subtle for me.
The previous paragraphs haven't been corroborated with real users,
though, so I might be mistaken and we might need to revisit these
links in the future.
These actions still take quite a lot of space. Maybe in the future we
could remove the "delete" icon, at least on budgets which cannot be
deleted.
When we see a list of, let's say, banners, and each one has a link to
edit them, the word "banner" in the text "edit banner" is redundant and
adds noise; even for users with cognitive disabilities, it's obvious
that the "edit" link refers to the banner.
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.
There's an edge case where the current phase of the budget was disabled.
In this case, the application was crashing.
I'm not sure what we should do regarding this case. Is it OK to allow
disabling the current phase? Is it OK to allow selecting a disabled
phase as the current phase?
Since I'm not sure about it, for now I'm leaving it the same way it was.
Co-authored-by: Julian Herrero <microweb10@gmail.com>
