Updating it required reorganizing the form so translatable fields are
together.
We also needed to add a `hint` option to the form label and input
methods so the hint wouldn't show up for every language.
Finally, the markdown editor needed to use the same globalize attributes
as inputs, labels and hints, which adds a bit of duplication.
Note the title field was hidden since commit 01b9aa8, even though it was
required and translatable. I've removed the required validation rule,
since it doesn't seem to make much sense and made the translatable
tests harder to write.
Also note the method `I18n.localize`, which is used to set the
milestone's title, uses `I18n.locale` even if it's inside a
`Globalize.with_locale` block, and so the same format is generated for
every locale.
The same way we did for banners.
We needed to add new translation keys so the labels are displayed in the
correct language. I've kept the original `title` and `body` attributes
so they can be used in other places.
While backporting, we also added the original translations because they
hadn't been backported yet.
After removing a translation while editing another one with invalid data
and sending the form, we were displaying the removed translation to the
user.
We now remove that translation from the form, but we don't remove it
from the database until the form has been sent without errors.
After adding a new translation with invalid data and sending the form,
we were disabling the new translation when displaying the form again to
the user, which was confusing.
Creating a new form builder might be too much. My idea was so the view
uses more or less the same syntax it would use with Rails' default
builder, and so we can use `text_field` instead of
`translatable_text_field`.
This change forces us to use nested attributes for translations, instead
of using the more convenient `:"title_#{locale}"` methods.
On the other hand, we can use Rails' native `_destroy` attribute to
remove existing translations, so we don't have to use our custom
`delete_translations`, which was a bit buggy since it didn't consider
failed updates.
The proposal image only can be present if feature :allow_images is enabled, so there is no need to include both conditions. The data-equalizer also is unnecessary because the :thumb image already has an fix height.
