It used to validate the post from the perspective of the user who
created the post. That did not work well when an admin attempted to
add a poll to a post created by a user who cannot create posts because
it said the user cannot create polls.
The problem was that it used post.user for the validation process
instead of post.acting_user.
They can use the remove vote button or select the same option again for
single choice polls.
This commit refactor the plugin to properly organize code and make it
easier to follow.
The endpoint the existence of the poll and if the current user can see it. It
will facilitate using a poll programmatically, especially if we'd like to create an external poll through a theme component.
Over the years we accrued many spelling mistakes in the code base.
This PR attempts to fix spelling mistakes and typos in all areas of the code that are extremely safe to change
- comments
- test descriptions
- other low risk areas
Adds an optional title attribute to polls. The rationale for this addition is that polls themselves didn't contain context/question and relied on post body to explain them. That context wasn't always obvious (e.g. when there are multiple polls in a single post) or available (e.g. when you display the poll breakdown - you see the answers, but not the question)
As a side note, here's a word on how the poll plugin works:
> We have a markdown poll renderer, which we use in the builder UI and the composer preview, but… when you submit a post, raw markdown is cooked into html (twice), then we extract data from the generated html and save it to the database. When it's render time, we first display the cooked html poll, and then extract some data from that html, get the data from the post's JSON (and identify that poll using the extracted html stuff) to then render the poll using widgets and the JSON data.
They were relying on a pristine message bus, however current implementation
still uses redis, stuff can get held up and we can end up publishing
distributed cache messages in the middle invalidating the tests
This reduces chances of errors where consumers of strings mutate inputs
and reduces memory usage of the app.
Test suite passes now, but there may be some stuff left, so we will run
a few sites on a branch prior to merging
* FEATURE: introduces minimum trust level for polls
This commit makes `poll_enabled` less misleading and introduces `poll_minimum_trust_level_to_create`. If poll are enabled they will always be cooked, and if you have the required trust level you can create polls. As a side effect, it also fixes a bug where rebaking a post created by staff member when `poll_enabled=false` would end up not cooking it.
It also adds more tests to ensure settings are respected.
* admins should be whitelisted
* checks for admin in post validation
* test for >= instead of == trust level
Since rspec-rails 3, the default installation creates two helper files:
* `spec_helper.rb`
* `rails_helper.rb`
`spec_helper.rb` is intended as a way of running specs that do not
require Rails, whereas `rails_helper.rb` loads Rails (as Discourse's
current `spec_helper.rb` does).
For more information:
https://www.relishapp.com/rspec/rspec-rails/docs/upgrade#default-helper-files
In this commit, I've simply replaced all instances of `spec_helper` with
`rails_helper`, and renamed the original `spec_helper.rb`.
This brings the Discourse project closer to the standard usage of RSpec
in a Rails app.
At present, every spec relies on loading Rails, but there are likely
many that don't need to. In a future pull request, I hope to introduce a
separate, minimal `spec_helper.rb` which can be used in tests which
don't rely on Rails.
Bianca Nenciu
Roman Rizzi
Josh Soref
chenyxuan
Jarek Radosz
Dan Ungureanu
Mark VanLandingham
Sam Saffron
Guo Xiang Tan
Régis Hanol
Joffrey JAFFEUX
Guo Xiang Tan
Gerhard Schlager
Andy Waite