This meta tag was added years ago as a workaround for
foundation-sites issue 12167, in commit 791b2e12 from PR 4753
("Fix invalid HTML in application layout").
Since we now use foundation-sites >= 6.8.1 (fixed in 6.7.1),
the workaround is unnecessary.
The "Maximum number of votes" text in poll question show was unnecessary.
It appeared for both unique and open-ended questions, but it only makes
sense for questions that allow multiple answers.
The long question legislation process title will overflow the text box contain,
block the description and make the layout so bad.
The question title box should fit the size of the text, no matter how long it is.
Increase the min-height of the quiz title container in legislation_process.scss to ensure
long titles remain visually contained and do not overflow the header area.
This change improves UI consistency for legislation process pages.
Issue: #6047
Note that we have the same code in the officing section.
Then we can use the same component.
Note also that we are removing the parts of the system specs that are now
covered by the component itself, and taking the chance to unify tests.
In these removals and unifications we take into account that there are
other specs which already cover user interaction in this section.
Unify the code from app/views/officing/results/index.html.erb with
app/views/admin/poll/results/_result.html.erb. This prepares the ground
to extract a component in the next commit and avoid duplication.
Some of the code was in its own component, while some of the code
remained in the polls/show view.
Note that we're re-structuring the code a little bit, so it's clear that
the "already voted" messages are only shown when users can vote. Also
note that now the `can?` condition involves the existence of a
`current_user` and that the poll is not expired, so we can simplify the
`voted_in_web` condition.
This way it'll be easier to refactor it.
Note there was a system test which tested both the callout and the form
when unverified users visit a poll. We've split this system test in two
component tests.
Our original interface to vote in a poll had a few issues:
* Since there was no button to send the form, it wasn't clear that
selecting an option would automatically store it in the database.
* The interface was almost identical for single-choice questions and
multiple-choice questions, which made it hard to know which type of
question we were answering.
* Adding other type of questions, like open answers, was hard since we
would have to add a different submit button for each answer.
So we're now using radio buttons for single-choice questions and
checkboxes for multiple-choice questions, which are the native controls
designed for these purposes, and a button to send the whole form.
Since we don't have a database table for poll ballots like we have for
budget ballots, we're adding a new `Poll::WebVote` model to manage poll
ballots. We're using WebVote instead of Ballot or Vote because they
could be mistaken with other vote classes.
Note that browsers don't allow removing answers with radio buttons, so
once somebody has voted in a single-choice question, they can't remove
the vote unless they manually edit their HTML. This is the same behavior
we had before commit 7df0e9a96.
As mentioned in c2010f975, we're now adding the `ChangeByZero` rubocop
rule, since we've removed the test that used `and change`.
This way changing it will be easier.
Note we're moving the `legislation-draft-versions-form` class into the
form component itself, which is wat we usually do in components.
This way changing it will be easier.
Note we're changing the name of the HTML class to follow our naming
conventions; the `edit_page` class wasn't used anywhere, so we don't
need to change anything else.
This rule was introduced in RuboCop 1.76.0 to ensure methods ending
in '?' return boolean.
This commit applies suggested renames and code cleanup:
- Renames 'is_active?' to 'active_class' since it returns a string
- Renames 'parsed_value' to 'in_favor?' and 'is_request_active' to end with '?'
for boolean semantics
- Skips false positives like 'save', 'auto_labels' or 'save_requiring_finish_signup',
which are not predicate methods.
Since commit c5103d3025, the styles from application.scss no longer apply
to app/views/dashboard/poster/index.pdf.erb.
To recover the text-center alignment, we add the rule in dashboard.scss.
Note that we also remove text-center from the h2, since it wasn't applied
and there's no need to recover it because it doesn't exist in the preview
either.
We were using a placeholder, which is way less accessible than a label.
One issue here (which also happened before, but is now more obvious) is
that, when adding several options, there will be many fields with the
same label.
Another issue is that, for some languages, we're using texts like "Add a
closed answer", which might be confusing because we might be editing an
existing answer. The proper solution would probably be using the text
"Option 1", "Option 2", ... I'm not doing so right now because I'm not
sure that's a good option and because changing the text would mean
losing the existing translations.
The link to the comments page was an "expand" icon, which was confusing
because it wasn't really expanding the contents of the sidebar but going
to an entirely different page. Furthermore, it didn't have any text for
people using screen readers, which is why Axe was reporting the
following accessibility error:
```
link-name: Links must have discernible text (serious)
https://dequeuniversity.com/rules/axe/4.10/link-name?application=axeAPI
The following 1 node violate this rule:
Selector: #annotation-link > a
HTML: <a href="/legislation/processes/75/draft_versions/30/annotations/8?sub_annotation_ids=">
<span class="icon-expand" aria-hidden="true"></span>
</a>
Fix all of the following:
- Element is in tab order and does not have accessible text
Fix any of the following:
- Element does not have text that is visible to screen readers
- aria-label attribute does not exist or is empty
- aria-labelledby attribute does not exist, references elements that
do not exist or references elements that are empty
- Element has no title attribute
```
So we're removing the icon and turning the "N comments" text into a
link, so it's easier to guess that the link takes us to the page showing
all the comments for this annotation.
