In this form, the only case where `poll` might be present without
`question.poll` being present to is going to be the `new` action. We can
assign the poll in the `new` action and get rid of the `poll` variable
in the form.
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.
In some cases (e.g. after editing or creating a resource
with errors) the default back_link did not redirect to the
expected page.
Now we force the back_links to the index pages, so we
always get the desired redirect.
The interface of this method has changed and uses keyword arguments
instead of a hash of options. This change will be particularly
significant when upgrading to Ruby 3.
We were getting some deprecation warnings:
DEPRECATION WARNING: `Module#parent` has been renamed to
`module_parent`. `parent` is deprecated and will be removed in Rails
6.1.
DEPRECATION WARNING: `Module#parents` has been renamed to
`module_parents`. `parents` is deprecated and will be removed in Rails
6.1.
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).
We forgot to change the line rendering the image in commits 3574bf867c
and 810bdae37a, and so the custom image was being ignored.
Note that, in the test, we're stubbing a constant instead of adding a
new image. The main reason is that, if we add a new image, forks would
have to change the image when they change the `VALID_IMAGES` constant;
otherwise the tests would fail.
We're going to make a change, and it's easier if we've already got a
component with tests so we don't have to write system tests to check
whether the map is rendered.
Add a help text on admin budget show page and improve text from Admin::Budgets::HelpComponent in order to
clarify its functionality when we are using the wizard.
In commit f374478dd, we enabled the possibility to use HTML in the
search results translations in order to add a <strong> tag to these
results. However, that meant we were also allowing HTML tags inside the
search term itself, and so it was possible to inject HTML on the page.
Stripping the HTML tags solves the issue.
Note the issue wasn't a high severity issue because tags such as
`<script>` weren't allowed since we were using the `sanitize` helper.
We were using very similar code for proposals, debates and investments,
so we might as well share the code between them.
Note we're using the `proposals.index.search_results` key even for
debates and investments. This will still work because the translations
shared the same text, but IMHO we should rename the key to something
like `shared.search_results_summary`. We aren't doing so because we'd
lose all the existing translations.
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.
This way we fix a bug we mentioned in commit 930bb753c which caused
links to documents to be broken when editing their title because the
title was used to generate the URL of the document.
Note we're still using Paperclip to render cached attachments because
this is the only case where we store files with just Paperclip and not
Active Storage.
With Active Storage, we render attachments just like any other resource,
using `polymorphic_path`. Paperclip included the `url` method in the
model; since the model doesn't have access to the request parameters
(like the host), this was inconvenient because it wasn't possible to
generate absolute URLs with Paperclip.
In order to simplify the code and make it similar to the way we used
Paperclip, we're adding a `variant` method accepting the name of a
variant and returning the variant.
Defining a behavior on hover means making it different for people using
a keyboard or a touchscreen (most of the population, nowadays).
In this case, we had an accessibility issue where the message wouldn't
disappear once it appeared. That meant that, after tabbing through all
the links and buttons in, for instance, the debates index, the page
would be filled with "participation not allowed" messages, and in order
to see the information about how many people have voted, reloading the
page was required.
For touchscreen users the behavior was similar to what we get on hover,
although we've found some inconsistencies when trying to support several
elements on the same page.
We think in proposals it makes sense to hide the "support" button when
users click on it, and the same applies to the buttonsto support and
vote investment projects. However, we aren't hiding the buttons to
agree/disagree with a debate in order to keep the information about the
current number of people agreeing and disagreeing visible.
Note we're removing some support spec methods because after these
changes the duplication isn't as obvious as it was in the past.
We were using the same logic six times regarding when we should show a
"participation not allowed" message. Since we're going to change the
current behavior, we're unifying the logic in one place so the changes
will be easier.
Hovering over the votes showed a "participation not allowed" message
which was annoying when scrolling with the browser or simply moving the
mouse around the page. Furthermore, it hid the information about the
number of votes, links to show/collapse replies, ...
We're planning to change the behavior of all the "participation not
allowed" messages in order to show them on click instead of showing them
on hover (just like it's done on touchscreens). In the case of comments,
supports, however, there's very limited space in the part showing the
number of supports for comments, so adding this message without breaking
the layout is challenging.
So, for now, we're simply redirecting unauthenticated users to the login
page. If find an easy way to implement a better user interface in the
future to display the "participation not allowed" message, we might
change this behaviour.
Note we're using the in-favor HTML class instead of the in_favor class
so we're consistent with our conventions for HTML classes and because we
use the in-favor class in similar places.
Also note the styles of the legislation process annotations/comments
buttons is now similar to the styles in the other sections. Previously,
the colors didn't have enough contrast and there was a very strange
margin between the "thumbs up" icon and the number of people agreeing
(that margin wasn't present between the "thumbs down" icon and the
number of people disagreeing).
As mentioned in commits 5311daadf and bb958daf0, using links combined
with JavaScript to generate POST requests to the server has a few
issues.
We're also improving the keyboard access. Previously, the links were
focusable and clickable with the keyboard. Now we're disabling the
buttons when voting isn't allowed.
Since these elements can no longer be focused, we're adding an element
with `tabindex="0"` so the "participation not allowed" message is shown,
like we do in most places.
Note we're slightly changing one test because now when hovering over the
button on Chrome, the "participation not allowed" text isn't shown; it's
only shown when hovering on the parts of the `div.ballot` element
outside the button. Since we're already rewriting the behavior of the
"participation not allowed" text in a different pull request, we aren't
going to fix this behavior.
Using the `flex-with-gap` mixin we avoid the left margin in the second
element when the screen space isn't wide enough to show both buttons.
Setting the margins with CSS also allows as to simplify the view and
makes it easier to customize styles.
Having buttons (previously links) with the text "I agree 75%" is
confusing; people might believe they're saying they only partially agree
with the content. Besides, the results percentages is a different piece
of information which shouldn't be related to whether one person
agrees/disagrees with the content.
This problem might be solved for people using screen readers since we
added the aria-label attribute. However, for sighted keyboard users, the
percentage was being outlined on focus as part of the button, which
might be confusing.
Note we're using the `budgets.investments.investment.add_label` and
`budgets.ballots.show.remove_label` internationalization keys so they're
consistent with the `budgets.investments.investment.add` and
`budgets.ballots.show.remove` keys which were already present. We aren't
unifying these keys in order to keep existing translations.
This way blind screen reader users will know which proposal they're
supporting. In a list of proposals, context might not be clear when a
link saying "Support" or "Support this proposal" is announced, but a
link saying "Support Create a monthly transport ticket" is less
ambiguous.
Just like we did with investments in commit de436e33a, we're keeping the
title attribute because when visiting a proposal page, the connection
between the "Support" link and the proposal is not as clear as it is in
the proposals index page, so it might not be clear what you're
supporting.
