Now the banner component accepts either a banner or a section and loads
the banner if it's a section, so we don't have to add the `@banners`
variable in several controllers.
We use a different logic to load the card depending on the controller
we're using, and then share the rest of the code. This way we simplify
the code a bit, since we don't have to check for the page_id parameter.
We didn't add any validation rules to the card model. At the very least,
the title should be mandatory.
The fact that the label field is marked as optional in the form but the
other fields are not probably means description and link should be
mandatory as well. However, since there might be institutions using
cards with descriptions but no link or cards with links but no
description, so we're keeping these fields optional for compatibility
reasons. We might change our minds in the future, though.
There are some sections where we are not reusing it:
* The budget investments search is completely different, so this
component isn't appropriate there
* Booth assignment and officers are slightly different, and I'm not
entirely sure it's safe to refactor these cases
We were writing the same text over and over for the same translations.
Since they all serve the same function, it's perfectly fine for them to
have the same text, and so we can have a shared translation.
Note the CSS could probably be improved to avoid duplication with other
button style definitions. However, that's fine because we're going to
change the style of the links soon.
For the same reason, I haven't bothered to style every single link the
way it was until now.
In some tables, we had "actions", and some columns were also links
pointing to some places. Having both of them at the same time is
confusing, particularly since traditionally the links in the columns
pointed to the same place as some of the actions (although that's not
the case since commit 48db31cd).
We're still keeping links in tables which don't have an action column.
For instance, the proposals table has a "select" button which would be
harder to use if we had action buttons next to it.
Now we can use the checkbox label text directly as locator at spec,
also default web_sections are created before every spec by loading
`db/seeds.rb` file so we were duplicating "Proposals" WebSection.
We were allowing users to check/uncheck the "Visible to valuators"
checkbox even when the budget is finished and so the investments cannot
be edited. So users were still able to check/uncheck this attribute, but
the server was silently rejecting these changes.
We've considered removing the column in this case but decided to keep it
since users can already control which columns they'd like to display.
After upgrading to Turbolinks 5, redirects are followed on AJAX
requests, so we were accidentally redirecting the user after they mark
an investment as visible to valuators.
There was already a system spec failing due to this issue ("Admin budget
investments Mark as visible to valuators Keeps the valuation tags");
however, it only failed in some cases, so we're adding additional tests.
Ideally we would write a system test to check what happens when users
click on the checkbox. However, from the user's point of view, nothing
happens when they do so, and so testing it is hard. There's a usability
issue here (no feedback is provided to the user indicating the
investment is actually updated when they click on the checkbox and so
they might look for a button to send the form), which also results in a
feature which is difficult to test.
So we're writing two tests instead: one checking the controller does not
redirect when using a JSON request, and one checking the form submits a
JSON request.
I've chosen JSON over AJAX because usually requests to the update action
come from the edit form, and we might change the edit form to send an
AJAX request (and, in this case, Turbolinks would handle the redirect as
mentioned above).
Another option would be to send an AJAX request to a different action,
like it's done for the toggle selection action. I don't have a strong
preference for either option, so I'm leaving it the way it was. At some
point we should change the user interface, though; right now in the same
row there are two actions doing basically the same thing (toggling
valuator visibility and toggling selection) but with very different user
interfaces (one is a checkbox and the other one a link changing its
style depending on the state), resulting in a confusing interface.
There were places where we had two links pointing to the same place; one
link would be the name/title of a record, and one link would be under
the "actions" column.
This is confusing, since users would probably expect these links to
point to different places (which is what happens in other tables in the
admin section) and might try to click one of them and then the other
one and be surprised when they found out both of them go to the same
page.
This way we can remove duplication and simplify the code in the view.
Note we're not using the "within" method in the tests to access a row,
because it doesn't seem to work in components tests when passing the
`text:` option.
In the past we were using some <div> tags surrounding table action
links in order to guarantee these links wouldn't be wider that their
cell's space and wouldn't expand over two lines.
However, while these links didn't expand over two lines, at certain
resolutions the width of their text exceeded the width of the links,
causing part of the text to be outside their borders.
This behavior was also inconsistent: some tables had these <div> tags,
and some tables didn't.
Since we've now introduced the table actions component, the code is more
consistent and we're getting rid of these <div> tags. So now we're again
facing the issue where links could expand over two lines.
Using a flex layout solves this issue and considerably improves the
layout at lower resolutions.
This partial was going to get too complex since in some places we've got
different texts, different URLs or different confirmation messages.
While we should probably try to be more consistent and that would make
the partial work in most cases, there'll always be some exceptions, and
using a partial (with, perhaps, some helper methods) will become messy
really quickly.
