Since the change on commit cbbe188d6 we added a Poll.current.any?
condition to show the officing link on admin menu to officers.
That condition doesn't have much sense since Poll results only can be
added after a poll has ended, and there may be only one active poll.
This way we reduce the number of system tests or, in some cases,
requests during system tests, making the tests faster.
We're still testing the interaction with the menu when users have the
right permissions.
We weren't showing the year when a page was created/updated, and we
were displaying the created date instead of the updated one.
Co-Authored-By: Diego Calvo <diego.calvo@enreda.coop>
In the management section, `current_user` is the user impersonated by
the manager. We were deciding whether to show the admin menu depending
on the privileges of the current user, but this menu should be shown
according to the privileges of the manager who is impersonating the
user.
We're doing a similar (very subtle) change in the login items. We were
rendering the `login_items` partial passing `current_user: user`.
However, inside this method, we were using `user_signed_in`, which
ignored the `current_user` we were passing. The result was always the
same expect in tests where we manually sign in users, but we're changing
it anyway in order to reduce confusion.
This way it's easier to refactor it.
Note we're using `with_request_url` in the tests because the component
renders the locale switcher, which needs a URL in order to work. This
doesn't affect whether we're in the management section or not.
We were displaying an icon showing that certain actions can't be
performed. However, people who can't see the icons were hearing that
they _can_ perform certain actions while the opposite is true.
We've considered other options to solve this problem. One was to split
the list in two: actions that can be performed and actions that can't be
performed. It was tricky because in some cases we're listing that
actions that can be performed now and in other cases we're displaying
the actions that people will be able to perform once they verify their
account.
Another option was to include the word "Cannot" as a prefix instead of
"Additional verification needed". We haven't done so because, while in
English we say "cannot do this thing", in other languages they say
"this thing cannot do".
So we've gone with a solution where people hearing what's on the screen
know what's going on and we don't have to make big changes in the code.
As mentioned in commit 925f04e3f, icon classes make screen readers
announce strange symbols and aren't properly displayed for people who
have changed their preferred font family.
When voting investment projects, the sidebar was rendered without the
`@heading_content_blocks` being set. That resulted in a 500 error when
the heading had content blocks.
By extracting the logic to a component, we make sure the heading content
blocks are properly set every time this code is rendered, no matter
which controller is rendering the view.
This way it will be possible to write CSS and JavaScript code that will
only apply to specific tenants.
Note that CSS customization is still limited because it isn't possible
to use different SCSS variables per tenant.
We forgot to do so in commit d827768c0. In order to avoid the same
mistake in the future, we're extracting a method to get these
attributes. We're also adding tests, since we didn't have any tests to
check that the `dir` attribute was properly set.
The `reload` method added to max_votes validation is needed because the
author gets here with some changes because of the around_action
`switch_locale`, which adds some changes to the current user record and
therefore, the lock method raises an exception when trying to lock it
requiring us to save or discard those record changes.
We were using the same logic in four different places, so we're creating
a new class to handle that logic.
Note that I didn't find a way to delegate the `content` method to a
`Admin::TableActionsComponent`, so we're delegating the `action` method
instead. That means we need to create a method returning an
`Admin::TableActionsComponent`. We also need to cache this object;
otherwise we were getting an error when calling `actions.action` from
the `Admin::Poll::Questions::TableActionsComponent`.
Adding, modifiying, and/or deleting questions for an already started
poll is far away from being democratic and can lead to unwanted side
effects like missing votes in the results or stats.
So, from now on, only modifiying questions will be possible only if
the poll has not started yet.
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.
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.
We were getting a warning in Rails 6:
DEPRECATION WARNING: ActionView::Base instances should be constructed
with a lookup context, assignments, and a controller.
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.
