We were displaying two progress bars for the same thing, and hiding one
of them.
Displaying just one of them and readjusting the styles accordingly is a
bit more intuitive IMHO.
We're also getting the text inside the progress bar out of it; its
purpose inside an element with the `progressbar` role is to provide the
same information as the progress bar (which we aren't exactly doing,
although it could be argued that we do), and in order to be accessible
we should provide the same text in the `aria-valuetext` field, which we
aren't doing. This also simplifies our CSS, which was working because we
defined a padding which covered the height of the hidden extra progress
bar and would have needed quite a few changes if we kept just one
progress bar with text inside it. We can also remove a few CSS rules
which we added to override foundation's rules for the
`progress-meter-text` class.
We were setting it to 0, and so screen reader users might be confused by
it.
The easiest way to reuse the code and using it for both this attribute
and the width of the progress bar is to move this method to the voting
style, just like the other methods used in this view.
Note the progressbar ARIA role might not be right, since this isn't a
task which is "progressing", but an indicator of the amount spent and
amount available, which is exactly what the <meter> HTML5 tag was
designed for.
We might use a <meter> tag in the future. For now, I'm leaving it as it
is because I'm not certain about how well <meter> is supported in
accessibility tools, and because it's definitely not supported in
Internet Explorer 11, which we haven't officially dropped support for.
We were rendering an individual ballot, and then rendering all ballots
(including the already rendered one). So we can skip the first part, as
pointed out by microweb10 in the comments of pull request 3036.
We're passing the amount as a paramenter to the "remaining" text, so it
makes sense to pass it to the "amount spent" text as well.
Here we're also changing the I18n key to the text saying users can
change their vote, so it's easier to note the text is about changing
their vote, and not about the projects they have voted so far.
The `refresh_ballots` partial ignores the `investment` parameter
completely; instead, it iterates over the investments in the
`@investments` instance variable.
The main obstacle to extract this partial was probably the paths for the
flag and unflag actions.
Now that we use Rails 5.1 `resolve` method to handle nested resources,
we can use `polymorphic_path`.
Also note the code is a bit ugly because comments render a divider. We
should probably use a CSS border instead.
Co-Authored-By: taitus <sebastia.roig@gmail.com>
We were treating legislation proposals as if they were proposals,
omitting the "legislation" namespace, and so we were flagging/unflagging
proposals when we wanted to flag/unflag a legislation proposal.
We weren't using `foundation()` in these cases, so after flagging a
debate or a comment, we had to reload the page before we could unflag
it.
We're also adding a test for the fix in commit ea85059d. This test shows
it's necessary to filter the elements with JavaSctipt using `first()` if
we want the same code to work with comments.
Co-Authored-By: taitus <sebastia.roig@gmail.com>
Originally, the code was shared between the index action and the search
action, but since commit fb6dbdf2 that's no longer the case. So in the
index action we don't need to check whether a user is a
moderator/manager/admin/official or not; they all are.
Extract the needed portion of code to a new partial to be able to update
only the elements needed when a new comment is added keeping UI properly
updated.
In this case the confirmation dialog isn't really necessary since the
action to enable/disable the setting can easily be undone.
Furthermore, these tests were failing with Chrome 83, probably because
we use `confirm_dialog` and then we use `visit` without checking the
page in between.
In theory we shouldn't need to check the page in between because the
request generated by `confirm_dialog` is a synchronous one and so
`visit` isn't executed after the previous request has finished, but
apparently this behavior has changed in Chrome 83.
We could add an expectation before executing the `visit` method, but
that wouldn't improve the usability of the application.
The number of errors in a form includes several errors for the same
field. For example, if a title is mandatory and has to have at least 5
characters, leaving the title blank will result in two errors. So users
will be invited to look for two errors, but they'll only find one field
with errors.
So it's a bit more intuitive to show as many errors as fields having
errors.
Note we're excluding errors on `:base`, which is a bit of a hack for
errors in association fields. For example, if the title of one
translation is not present, `resource.errors.messages` will contain two
elements: one for the translation's title, and one for the `base` field.
This resulted in the count of errors being 2 when there was only one.
Also note I haven't found a way to count errors on all `has_many`
relations. That is, if two translations have a missing title field, only
one error will be mentioned in the message (as it did before this
commit).
We were using inline styles and passing local variables around, while
the rule we were following is very simple: it's only hidden if it's a
form to reply to a comment.
We were using a <ul> tag for a single comment, where the first element
of the list was the comment itself and the second element was the list
of replies.
IMHO it makes more sense to have a list of all comments, where every
element is a comment and inside it there's a list of replies.
We're also rendering the list even if it has no children so it's easier
to add comments through JavaScript. Then we use the :empty CSS selector
to hide the list if it's empty. However, since ERB adds whitespace if we
structure our code the usual way and current browsers don't recognize
elements with whitespace as empty, we have to use the `tag` helper so no
whitespace is added.
Tests are also a bit easier to read, even though we need to use the
`text:` option to find links because otherwise the text in the hidden
`<span>` tags will cause `click_link` to miss the link we want to click.
Here's an explanation by one of Capybara's authors:
https://github.com/teamcapybara/capybara/issues/2347#issuecomment-626373440
We were passing around many variables to condition the way we display
the comment. However, in the end we only had one place where these
variables were used: valuation. So we can make everything depend on the
valuation variable.
It was created in commit 83d254ad, but it was never used, since the
commit creating it removed the code rendering the
`budgets/investments/comments` partial, which this partial was supposed
to replace.
The method `tag_list_on` doesn't add an `ORDER_BY` clause to the SQL
query it generates, and so results may come in any order.
However, in the tests we were assuming the tags were ordered by ID in
descending order. Since that isn't always the case, the tests were
failing sometimes.
Ordering the tags alphabetically solves the problem. We could also use
the same order admins used when adding the tags:
```
@process.customs.order("taggings.created_at").pluck(:name).join(", ")
```
However, I'm not sure it improves the user experience, and it makes the
code more complicated.
benefit to administratos.
This filter was added in commit 4285ba4b, it was changed in commit
002d8688, and most of the code from the original commit has disappeared
without a trace (maybe due to a merge conflict?).
This filter could actually be useful if we started using it when users
click on a tag. Since we don't, I'm removing it. We might add it back if
we decide to actually use it.
