In the moderation section there's no clear indicator as to what the
"Hide" and "Block" buttons do and the difference between them.
Since we're using confirmation dialogs in all moderation actions except
these ones, we're adding them here as well, so the difference will
appear in the dialog.
This isn't a very good solution, though, since the confirmation dialog
comes after clicking the button and users have already been wondering
whether clicking that button will be the right choice. A better solution
would be making the purpose clear before the button is clicked, although
that's something we don't do anywhere in the admin/moderation sections.
The test "Action links remember the pagination setting and the filter"
was failing sometimes because it assumed the third user created was
going to appear in the third place, but that wasn't always the case.
So we're using the same order we use in the rest of the sections dealing
with hidden content.
In the past, whenever we hid users, we also hid their comments.
However, we've now implemented an action to hide users without hiding
their comments. In this case, we still want to show the comment, but we
weren't doing so.
We're continuing to replace links with buttons, for the reasons
explained in commit 5311daadf.
Since we're using the admin action component, we can also simplify the
logic handling the confirmation message.
In order to avoid duplicate IDs when generating buttons to block the
same author more than once in a page, we're including the record dom_id
in the ID of the button to block an author.
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.
Note that in proposal notifications we're writing the call to
render the component in the same line as the <div class="reply">
definition in order to be able to use the `:empty` selector when the
component renders nothing. No browser matches whitespace with the
`:empty` selector, so we can't add newline characters inside the tag. A
more elegant solution would be extracting the proposal notification
actions to a component and only rendering it if the moderation actions
component is rendered.
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
We're continuing to replace links with buttons, for the reasons
explained in commit 5311daadf.
We're also adding an ARIA label since on the same page there might be
several links to block different users.
We were testing the creation of newsletters and admin notifications for
each existing segment, which IMHO is a bit overkill, considering how
slow system tests are.
So far we don't have any reasons to believe creating newsletters and
admin notifications will only work for some user segments, so we're
testing a random one instead.
Running these tests on my machine is now about 15 seconds faster.
We're going to add geozones as user segments, so it's handy to have the
method in the UserSegments class.
We're also changing the `user_segment_emails` parameter name for
consistency and simplicity.
We're going to make it dynamic using the geozones. Besides, class
methods can be overwritten using custom models, while constants can't be
overwritten without getting a warning [1].
Makes the definition of segments with geozones a little cleaner. I
think it’s worth it, compared to the slight memory gain of using a
constant [2].
[1] warning: already initialized constant UserSegments::SEGMENTS
[2] https://stackoverflow.com/questions/15903835/class-method-vs-constant-in-ruby-rails#answer-15903970
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.
This test was failing sometimes. One possible cause (although it might
not be the only one) is we were querying the database with
`Campaing.last` after starting the process running the browser with a
`visit`. In the past doing so has resulted in database inconsistencies
while running the tests.
Since after running the test more than 1500 times we weren't able to
reproduce the failure, it's possible that this change doesn't fix the
issue which caused the test to fail, but in the worst case scenario we
reduce the number of possible reasons why it fails.
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.
The last expectation we were using in this test is satisfied before
going back to the admin stats page, as the campaing2 name is not
present before clicking the `Go back` link. Because of this, the
test could end while the request thrown by the `Go back` link is
not completed yet, which can collide with the following test and
cause a flake spec.
It was accidentally introduced in commit 756a16f67. Pronto didn't warn
us because in that commit we deleted the code where the `group` method
was used.
It was accidentally introduced in commit 2b709f1a3. Pronto didn't warn
us because the blank lines were together after removing the blank lines
between them.
The link to "See all investments" didn't have the `heading_id`
parameter, which resulted in the ballot information not being displayed
when in the voting phase.
We could modify the link to include the `heading_id` parameter, but IMHO
it's more robust to select the heading automatically when there's only
one heading. That way manually accessing the page without a `heading_id`
parameter will still work as if the heading had been selected.
The interface was a bit confusing, since after clicking on "See
unfeasible investments" (or similar), we were on a page where no
investments were shown.
Besides, since commit 7e3dd47d5, the group page is only linked from the
"my ballot" page, through a link inviting the user to vote in that
group, and it's only possible to vote selected investments (which is the
default filter during the final voting phase).
The only reason we had these links here was these links weren't present
in the investments page. But they're present there since commit
04605d5d5, so we don't need them in the group page anymore.
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).
We removed it in commit c322b2c4a because it was hard to know the
difference between "Feasible" and "Not unfeasible". We're renaming the
"Not unfeasible" filter instead.
We're also moving the "selected" filter so it appears before the
"unselected" filter, just like the "feasible" filter appears before the
"unfeasible" filter.
As mentioned in commit bc0f04075, a <select> field which submits its
form on change causes many accessibility and usability issues. In this
case there was also an incompatibility with the advanced search filter
which caused a bug solved in commit 541a5fa89.
So the question is where to position the filters and how to display
them. One factor to take into the account is how relevant these filters
are, particularly compared to the links to select the prefered order,
since we don't usually give users the choice of both filters and orders.
Our filters don't really make sense until the valuation phase starts,
since before that phase investments aren't selected nor their
feasibility is decided.
After that phase, the only phase where citizens are really involved
is the final voting; the rest of the phases are done by valuators and
administrators. In the final voting, citizens can only vote on selected
projects, and that's the default filter during that phase.
So these filters are mainly there for information purposes, and not to
help citizens in the phases where they're actually involved (accepting
projects, selecting projects and balloting).
Orders, on the other hand, play a crucial role during the final voting
phase. Since citizens might have already voted for a few projects and
have, let's say, 100,000€ left, ordering by price allows them to find
which projects are within their remaining budget.
In conclusion, orders are more important than filters, and so they
should have a more prominent place.
For consistency with the proposals section, where we've got some links
in the sidebar (bottom part of the page on small screens) providing a
similar funcionality, like accessing selected proposals or archived or
retired proposals, we're moving the investments filters to the sidebar
(bottom part of the page on small screens) as well.
There was an edge case where we could access the headings index without
sending the mode parameter in the URL. That meant when sending the
headings form we could send a form with the mode hidden field set to an
empty string. When that happened, the returned text was
`t("admin.budgets.help.#{i18n_namespace}.`, which returned a hash.
Using `multiple` when an empty strin is received solves the issue.
The text "Groups and headings" might cause users to think both groups
and headings have the same hierarchy, and wonder whether what they
immediately see are groups or headings.
Using "Heading groups" we make it clear that what comes immediately is a
group, and then we see each group has headings.
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.
Captions benefit blind screen reader users who navigate through tables,
particularly in this case because we potentially have several tables
with headings (one table per group), so when navigating through tables
it might be hard to know which group the headings belong to.
In this case they also benefit sighted users. Usability tests have shown
the "Groups and headings" section is a bit confusing, so adding a
caption like "Headings in Districts" helps clarifying Districts is a
group and the table refers to headings in that group.
The very same table is rendered in the "headings" step of the budget
creation wizard. However, in that case the information of the caption is
redundant because the page is specific for headings belonging to a
certain group. We're making the element invisible but still keeping it
for screen reader users in order to ease their navigation through
tables.
The population field is optional and only used for statistic purposes,
and the content block feature is also secondary, so IMHO it's OK if we
don't display it in the index; if administrators need this information,
they can see it by going to the "edit heading" page.
With this change it's easier to navigate the table on small and medium
screens. Actually, the whole page is easier to navigate, since we
greatly reduce the cases where a horizontal scrollbar is present.
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.
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>
IMHO selecting in how many headings it's possible to support investments
isn't necessary when there's only one option to choose from. It's
obvious that if there's only one heading, it will be impossible to
select investments from more than one heading.
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.
These tests don't work without JavaScript. They were passing because the
`within` method always passes in component tests.
This reverts most of commit 822140a14.
