This way only verified users will be able to access this page, which
shows the username of the receiver of the direct message. With this,
it's no longer possible for unverified users to browse direct message
URLs in order to collect usernames from every user.
We were already opening them in the same window because we were
accidentall sanitizing the `target` attribute, but now we're making the
point more explicit.
As far as possible I think the code is clearer if we use CRUD actions
rather than custom actions. This will make it easier to add the action
to remove votes in the next commit.
Note that we are adding this line as we need to validate it that a vote
can be created on a comment by the current user:
```authorize! :create, Vote.new(voter: current_user, votable: @comment)```
We have done it this way and not with the following code as you might
expect, as this way two votes are created instead of one.
```load_and_authorize_resource through: :comment, through_association: :votes_for```
This line tries to load the resource @comment and through the association
"votes_for" it tries to create a new vote associated to that debate.
Therefore a vote is created when trying to authorise the resource and
then another one in the create action, when calling @comment.vote.
As far as possible I think the code is clearer if we use CRUD actions
rather than custom actions. This will make it easier to add the action
to remove votes in the next commit.
Note that we are adding this line as we need to validate it that a vote
can be created on a debate by the current user:
```authorize! :create, Vote.new(voter: current_user, votable: @debate)```
We have done it this way and not with the following code as you might
expect, as this way two votes are created instead of one.
```load_and_authorize_resource through: :debate, through_association: :votes_for```
This line tries to load the resource @debate and through the association
"votes_for" it tries to create a new vote associated to that debate.
Therefore a vote is created when trying to authorise the resource and
then another one in the create action, when calling @debate.vote_by (which
is called by @debate.register_vote).
We originally added the `cached_votes_up > 0` in commit 4ce95e273
because back then `cached_votes_up` was used in the denominator. That's
no longer the case, and it doesn't make sense to mark a debate with 1
vote and 10 flags as conflictive but not doing it when the debate has no
votes and 1000 flags.
We're fixing the bug right now because we're about to change the
affected line in order to apply a new rubocop rule.
This rule was added in rubocop-rspec 2.11.0. We aren't adding it
because, out of 3 offenses, this cop can only correct 2 automatically.
Not sure how to correct the other one since it uses `.and change`.
This rule was added in rubocop-rspec 2.9.0.
We were using `be_nil` 50% of the time, and `be nil` the rest of the
time. No strong preference for either one, but IMHO we don't lose
anything be being consistent.
Note we're excluding a few files:
* Configuration files that weren't generated by us
* Migration files that weren't generated by us
* The Gemfile, since it includes an important comment that must be on
the same line as the gem declaration
* The Budget::Stats class, since the heading statistics are a mess and
having shorter lines would require a lot of refactoring
For the HashAlignment rule, we're using the default `key` style (keys
are aligned and values aren't) instead of the `table` style (both keys
and values are aligned) because, even if we used both in the
application, we used the `key` style a lot more. Furthermore, the
`table` style looks strange in places where there are both very long and
very short keys and sometimes we weren't even consistent with the
`table` style, aligning some keys without aligning other keys.
Ideally we could align hashes to "either key or table", so developers
can decide whether keeping the symmetry of the code is worth it in a
case-per-case basis, but Rubocop doesn't allow this option.
We were already applying these rules in most cases.
Note we aren't enabling the `MultilineArrayLineBreaks` rule because
we've got places with many elements whire it isn't clear whether
having one element per line would make the code more readable.
We were using two different sets of extensions but, since the markdown
code is always written by administrators, IMHO it makes sense to be
consistent and always render markdown code the same way.
* Add Tables option to Redcarpet in Legislation draft
* Allow table tags in Admin Legislation Sanitizer
* Add Test to render markdown tables in Legislation drafts
* Add Test for Admin Legislation Sanitizer
We include test for image, table and h1 to h6 tags and additional tests to strengthen the allowed and disallowed parameters
* Add Table from markdown test in System and Factories
* Add test to render tables for admin user
* Remove comment line about Redcarpet options
* Edit custom css for legislation draft table to make it responsive
This methods performs much better when we need to load a lot of
globalized models translations and returns the best fallback translation
for the current language.
Note that in the budgets wizard test we now create district with no
associated geozone, so the text "all city" will appear in the districts
table too, meaning we can't use `within "section", text: "All city" do`
anymore since it would result in an ambiguous match.
Co-Authored-By: Julian Herrero <microweb10@gmail.com>
Co-Authored-By: Javi Martín <javim@elretirao.net>
These tests were failing with Ruby 3.0 because we were getting an error
when loading the `translations` association of the dummy class:
```
NameError:
uninitialized constant
DummyBanner::#<Class:0x000055630e4dccd8>::Translation
```
Specifying the `class_name` of the `translations` association solves the
issue.
