When there isn't a current user, the links can't be clicked, so there's
no real point in them being links.
When there's a current user and they cannot vote (for example, an
organization), having a link/button to an action they can't perform
isn't that useful IMHO. They get a message saying they aren't allowed to
vote but the message doesn't say why. However, in this case, many people
might try to click/touch the link/button and will wonder why nothing
happens, so we'll revisit this issue when we change the way we display
the "participation not allowed" messages.
Now the behavior is more similar to the one we get when voting
proposals/debates.
This way we can make the view code a bit easier to read.
We're also changing the order of the conditions a little bit so we only
check for the presence of a current user once.
To make sure we aren't breaking anything with these changes, we're
adding some tests. We're also replacing one system test checking content
with a component test, since component tests are much faster.
The action and the views were almost identical, with the supports
progress and the HTML classes of the success message element being the
only exceptions; we can use CSS for the styles instead.
Just like we did in commit 0214184b2d for investments, we're removing
some possible optimizations (we don't have any benchmarks proving they
affect performance at all) in order to simplify the code.
The investement votes component `delegate` code was accidentally left
but isn't used since commit 0214184b2, so we're removing it now that
we're removing the `voted_for?` helper method.
The `legislation_proposals#index` action was never used because it used
the same URL as `legislation_processes#proposals`.
In commit 702bfec24 we removed the view, but we forgot to remove the
controller action, the route, and some partials which were rendered from
the index view.
Currently the translation:
"Notify me by email when someone comments on my proposals or debates"
It only refers to proposals and debates, but actually it also refers to budget
investments, topics and polls.
We add new method set_user_locale to render the page
with the user's preferred locale.
Note that we add a condition 'if params[:locale].blank?'
to recover the user's preferred locale. This is necessary
because it may be the case that the user does not have an
associated locale, and when execute '@user.locale' when
this value is 'nil', by default returns the default locale.
As we do not want this to happen and we want the locale we
receive as parameter to prevail in this case.
We modified the link that previously redirected us to the "My content"
page to redirect us to the new page for managing subscriptions.
We also adapted the existing generic text by adding a description of
the related notification.
We modified the link that previously redirected us to the "My content"
page to redirect us to the new page for managing subscriptions.
We also adapted the existing generic text by adding a description of
the related notification.
You can update the same "notifications" section that we allow you to
update in "my account".
This "subscriptions" section differs from the "my account" section
because we do not need to be logged in to update the status of the
notifications.
The user can access this page without being logged in.
We identify the user through the "subscriptions_token" parameter and
show a list of the notifications that can be enable/disable.
We will return a 404 error in case someone accesses the page with a
non-existent token.
We also control the case that some anonymous user tries to access the
page without any token, by returning the CanCan::AccessDenied exception.
Giving any user a direct link to edit another user's account settings doesn't seem like a
great idea. Instead we'll generate a random secure hash string to help keep things
more secure. We'll store these hashes on each user so that we have a way to find
them during this public query. To do this we need to add a column to the user table.
In commit 905ac48bb we mentioned:
> Since we don't use `asset_path` to reference assets in the public
> folder, we can safely disable the `unknown_asset_fallback` option.
However, `asset_path` is used by the wicked_pdf gem when calling the
`wicked_pdf_stylesheet_link_tag` method. This method also checks the CSS
files, searching for `url()` calls and converting any relative URLs
referenced there to absolute URLs.
However, when compiling assets on production, our `application.css` file
contains the following line imported from Leaflet which says:
```
behavior: url(#default#VML);
```
When passing this URL to `asset_path` (which is something the wicked_pdf
gem does automatically), it doesn't find the URL, and so this call
crashes unless we enable then `unknown_asset_fallback` option.
Since the dashboard poster is a feature we might remove in the future,
we're avoiding changing a Rails global configuration just for this
feature. So, instead of enabling the `unknown_asset_fallback` option,
we're changing the `poster.pdf` view so it doesn't load all the CSS of
the application but only the CSS it needs.
Note we aren't adding a test case because this bug is only present on
production environments when assets have been precompiled.
It contains a fix which makes function helpers thread-safe. Without this
fix, our CI fails to compile assets with sprockets 4.x, so we need this
change in order to update sprockets.
Until now, when institutions made custom changes which made certain
tests obsolete, they didn't have a clear way to deal with the failing
tests. They would either:
1. Stop running the test suite
2. Run the test suite and get test failures 100% of the time
3. Comment the failing tests
4. Modify the failing tests in order to keep them in sync with the code
Solution 1 would be suicide from a maintenance perspective, although it
could work if only a couple of small custom changes were done.
Solution 2 would make it really hard to differenciate between "false
failures" and "real failures" when running the test suite.
Solution 3 would cause many conflicts when updating to a newer version
of Consul.
Solution 4 could make sense sometimes (big tests where only one line
needs to be changed), but it would also cause conflicts when updating
Consul.
So now, we're giving an alternative to solution 3 by making it easier to
exclude a test.
For tests that still need to be changed, when to use this solution
combined with a custom test and when to use solution 4 will have to be
decided on a per-case basis.
In the past, users had permission to edit their own legislation
proposals. However, that changed in commit ebfa3fb01, where we replaced
the `can` method with `cannot`.
An easier way to remove this permission is to simply remove the whole
statement, since by default users don't have permissions to do anything.
We're also adding a test checking users can't edit their own legislation
proposals, since it was missing.
The `edit` action is automatically authorized with the rules used for
`:update`, the same way the `new` action is authorized with the rules
used for `:create`.
So we don't need to authorize the edit and new actions.
These changes make it easier for institutions customizing Consul to
notice what they need to change if (for instance) they want users to be
able to edit investments under certain conditions.
See foundation/foundation-sites issue 12167, which was fixed in
Foundation 6.7.1. However, since Foundation 6.7 requires Node 12 and the
foundation-rails gem hasn't been maintained for a year and a half, we're
not updating for now.
We forgot to remove it in commit f28a5cc49.
The generated HTML was invalid, with the error:
> Element meta is missing one or more of the following attributes:
> content, property.
It was a bit confusing to press the "hide" button and then see the user
listed as "blocked". Some moderators might think they accidentally
pressed the wrong button.
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.
This is useful for people using screen readers, since the character used
as a separator won't be read aloud.
Since many screen readers also read content generated via CSS
pseudoelements, we aren't using `content: "|";` or similar but using
elements with a very small width instead.
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.
This HTML wasn't valid because it was a <span> containing the <div
class="reply"> element and it wasn't needed because there aren't any
flag actions in proposal notifications.
