We introduced this bug in commit 55d339572, since we didn't take hidden
records into consideration.
I've tried to use `update_column` to simplify the code, but got a syntax
error `unnamed portal parameter` and didn't find how to fix it.
Rubocop was complaining about a Layout/ExtraSpacing in a couple of
places.
These issues weren't detected by Pronto because they didn't affect lines
changed in the pull request. These lines were fine until we removed the
lines next to them in commits 4b42a68b6 and 00f0c4410.
We used "retire" because we translated it literally from the Spanish
verb "retirar" which can mean both "retire" and "withdraw".
Note we're still using "retire" in database fields and method names;
changing that might make it harder to upgrade from a previous version of
CONSUL.
After a user assigned as a budget admin deletes their account or gets blocked by
a moderator, the application throws an exception while loading the admin
investment index page.
As an erased user is not really deleted and neither its associated roles, the
application was failing when trying to sort and administration without a
username. In this case, the application was throwing an `ArgumentError:
comparison of NilClass with String failed` exception.
As a blocked user is not deleted or its roles, the application failed when trying
to access the user name through the delegation in the Administrator. In this
case, the application was throwing a `NoMethodError: undefined method `name' for
nil:NilClass` exception.
Add missing relation between administrator and budget_administrators, otherwise
we'd get the following exception when deleting and administrator with assigned budgets:
PG::ForeignKeyViolation:
ERROR: update or delete on table "administrators" violates foreign key constraint "fk_rails_ee7dc33688" on table "budget_administrators"
DETAIL: Key (id)=(3) is still referenced from table "budget_administrators".
I'd say this feature is actually tested in the "proposal polls specific
validations"; the empty test was probably added by accident in commit
4b8cc85c4.
This way the tests won't appear as "pending" when running the test
suite, and so we get rid of a lot of noise in the test results. There
doesn't seem to be a way to call `skip` without the test being marked as
"pending".
Note that in the globalizable tests we need to build a factory before
deciding whether an atribute is required or not (particularly for the
milestone factory, since milestone attributes are required depending on
the presence of other attributes). This isn't possible before we're
inside the test, so we can't add an `if:` condition to the test. So
we're adding the condition inside the test instead. A minor
inconvenience of this method is the test still runs even when the
condition is `false`.
This feature was only enabled for proposals five years ago, and it
hasn't changed since then. The pending test only gets in the way.
Implement. Or implement not. There is no pending.
The map feature was never implemented for debates (only for proposals
and budget investments) and it was crashing for debates because the page
didn't load the geozones. And we don't have a "geozone" field in the
debates form either.
So we're removing the map page alongside its (pending implementation)
tests.
CONSUL doesn't implement blank votes via web; the comment was based on
the code used in Madrid, which was actually very complex.
And the concept of "all city" was also specific to Madrid. Poll
questions aren't associated to a geozone, so the geozone will depend on
the poll they're associated to.
Avoid displaying the price in admin budget headings section
and avoid fill the field 'price' in admin budget headings form
when the budget has been checked with hide_money field.
One of these tests was failing sometimes on Github Actions. It looked
like the line `custom_banner.save!` was using the validations from the
Banner class sometimes, even if the callbacks had correctly been
removed in the DummyBanner class.
Se we're inheriting from ApplicationRecord instead of inheriting from
Banner. Since I couldn't reproduce the issue locally after running the
test hundreds of times and with the same seed and tests that were
running on Github Actions, there's a change this won't work. I've tested
a few times on Github Actions and it seems to be working, but we'll have
to keep an eye on it.
There are CONSUL installations where the validations CONSUL offers by
default don't make sense because they're using a different business
logic. Removing these validations in a custom model was hard, and that's
why in many cases modifying the original CONSUL models was an easier
solution.
Since modifying the original CONSUL models makes the code harder to
maintain, we're now providing a way to easily skip validations in a
custom model. For example, in order to skip the price presence
validation in the Budget::Heading model, we could write a model in
`app/models/custom/budget/heading.rb`:
```
require_dependency Rails.root.join("app", "models", "budget", "heading").to_s
class Budget::Heading
skip_validation :price, :presence
end
```
In order to skip validation on translatable attributes (defined with
`validates_translation`), we have to use the
`skip_translation_validation` method; for example, to skip the proposal
title presence validation:
```
require_dependency Rails.root.join("app", "models", "proposal").to_s
class Proposal
skip_translation_validation :title, :presence
end
```
Co-Authored-By: taitus <sebastia.roig@gmail.com>
In SQL, conditions like:
```
tag_id IN (x) AND taggable_type='Debate' OR taggable_type='Proposal'
```
Don't work as intended; we need to write:
```
tag_id IN (x) AND (taggable_type='Debate' OR taggable_type='Proposal')
```
Due to this bug, we were returning taggings for proposals without
intending to do so.
Since the code was very hard to read, we're also simplifying it.
We were using this hack in order to allow `File.new` attachments in
tests files. However, we can use the `fixture_file_upload` helper
instead.
Just like it happened with `file_fixture`, this helper method doesn't
work in fixtures, so in this case we're using `Rack::Test::UploadedFile`
instead.
This way we don't have to write `"spec/fixtures/files"` every time.
Note this method isn't included in factories. We could include it like
so:
```
FactoryBot::SyntaxRunner.class_eval do
include ActiveSupport::Testing::FileFixtures
self.file_fixture_path = RSpec.configuration.file_fixture_path
end
```
However, I'm not sure about the possible side effects, and since we only
use attachments in a few factories, there isn't much gain in applying
the monkey-patch.
This fixes a few issues we've had for years.
First, when attaching an image and then sending a form with validation
errors, the image preview would not be rendered when the form was
displayed once again. Now it's rendered as expected.
Second, when attaching an image, removing it, and attaching a new
one, browsers were displaying the image preview of the first one. That's
because Paperclip generated the same URL from both files (as they both
had the same hash data and prefix). Browsers usually cache images and
render the cached image when getting the same URL.
Since now we're storing each image in a different Blob, the images have
different URLs and so the preview of the second one is correctly
displayed.
Finally, when users downloaded a document, they were getting files with
a very long hexadecimal hash as filename. Now they get the original
filename.
The action and the views were almost identical, with the supports
progress and the HTML classes of the success message element being the
only exceptions; we can use CSS for the styles instead.
Just like we did in commit 0214184b2d for investments, we're removing
some possible optimizations (we don't have any benchmarks proving they
affect performance at all) in order to simplify the code.
The investement votes component `delegate` code was accidentally left
but isn't used since commit 0214184b2, so we're removing it now that
we're removing the `voted_for?` helper method.
In the past, users had permission to edit their own legislation
proposals. However, that changed in commit ebfa3fb01, where we replaced
the `can` method with `cannot`.
An easier way to remove this permission is to simply remove the whole
statement, since by default users don't have permissions to do anything.
We're also adding a test checking users can't edit their own legislation
proposals, since it was missing.
The `hide` action was calling the `block` method while the `soft_block`
action was calling the `hide` method.
Combined with the fact that we also have a `block` permission which is
used in `ModerateActions` the logic was hard to follow.
Other than removing a redundant action, we're fixing two bugs when
blocking an author using the links in the public views:
* We were always redirecting to the debates index, even if we blocked
the author of a proposal or an investment
* We weren't showing any kind of success message
Programmers can take advantage of this feature when defining custom
default settings. And, since many CONSUL installations had custom
changes in the `custom/verification/residence.rb` model and those
changes might use regular expressions, we're making it easier to migrate
that code to the new system to define valid postal codes.
We aren't documenting this feature in the description in the admin
section because most administrators don't know what regular expressions
are.
Note that, in order to simplify the setting, we already define the `/\A`
and `\Z/` characters. So, if the custom code had something like
`postal_code =~ /^280/`, the setting would have to be "280*" (without
the quotes) or, in order to comply with a length validation,
"280[0-9]{2}" (without the quotes).
We were using the word "registered" in English as an equivalent of the
Spanish word "empadronado". However, the term "registered" is very
confusing because it might be understood as being registered in the
CONSUL website.
In the message, we're saying "cannot participate" in order to make the
message consistent with the message regarding the required age.
Due to the way Madrid handled postal code validations (see issue 533),
by default we were requiring everyone to validate against the local
census *and* to specify valid postal codes.
This could be useful in some cases, but in other cases, the census
validation will be enough and there'll be no need to manually define the
valid postal codes. Besides, some CONSUL installations are used in
organizations or political parties where the postal code validation
doesn't make sense.
In some countries, postal codes are defined with a dash in the middle,
so we're using a colon to define ranges instead. We could also use two
dots, like in Ruby ranges, but IMHO this would cause typos since people
would enter codes separated with three dots or just one dot.
We weren't using the `be_valid` matcher because we had errors in the
census data.
Removing the `before_validation` callback and using a method to get the
census data instead allows us to stub the `census_data` method in the
tests, and so we can use the `be_valid` matcher instead of calling
`valid?` manually and then checking for errors.
So now:
* In the first few phases, no filters are shown (just like before)
* During the valuation phase, we show "Active" and "Unfeasible"
* During the final voting, we show "Active" (which now refers to the
selected investments), "Not selected for the final voting" and
"Unfeasible"
* When the budget is finished, we show "Winners", "Not selected for the
final voting" and "Unfeasible"
Now each investment is shown in one (and only one) of the filters
(except when the budget is finished; in this case we don't show selected
investments which didn't win), and we remove the confusing "Not
unfeasible" filter by only showing it during the valuation phase (before
filters are selected) and renaming it to "Active". We also rearrange the
filters so the default one for each phase is shown first.
The idea of using the "Active" text for investments which can be
selected during the selection phase and voted during the final voting is
experimental. Right now, for simplicity, since we assume filters will
always use the same text, we're removing the "Active" filter when the
budget is finished, since having both "Winners" and "Active" filters
would be confusing.
Before the "valuating" phase, all investments have undecided feasibility
and none have been selected, so the filters would return no results
(except the "not_unfeasible" one, which would return everything).
