This change refactors the check `user.groups.any?` and instead uses
`user.staged?` to check if the user is staged or not.
Also fixes several tests to ensure the users have their auto trust level
groups created.
Follow up to:
- 8a45f84277
- 447d9b2105
- c89edd9e86
The most common thing that we do with fab! is:
fab!(:thing) { Fabricate(:thing) }
This commit adds a shorthand for this which is just simply:
fab!(:thing)
i.e. If you omit the block, then, by default, you'll get a `Fabricate`d object using the fabricator of the same name.
This adds access controls for the `/polls/grouped_poll_results`
endpoint, such that only users with appropriate permissions can read
the grouped results of a given poll.
Cater for polls that can have multiple votes per user.
This fixes an older UserMerge and migration which was intended to
de-duplicate poll votes but did not account for "multiple" type polls.
https://meta.discourse.org/t/markdown-preview-and-result-differ/263878
The result of this markdown had different results in the composer preview and the post. This is solved by updating Loofah to the latest version and using html5 fragments like our user had reported. While the change was only needed in cooked_post_processor.rb for this fix, other areas also had to be updated due to various side effects.
When merging users, polls may error out if the source and target users have both voted on the same poll before. 😢
There is no constraint on the `poll_votes` table either to support this. Ideally a composite primary key can be used `(poll_id, user_id)`, but alas there is no support yet, which is probably why it wasn't created in the first place.
This fix ensures that merging is successful by only keeping the target poll votes if duplicates exist.
This fix also runs a migration on older poll votes where failed merges would have caused a single user to have voted twice on a single poll. e.g. this weird edge case
Since the poll post handler runs very early in the post creation
process, it's possible to run the handler on an obiviously invalid post.
This change ensures the post's `raw` value is present before
proceeding.
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.
It's very easy to forget to add `require 'rails_helper'` at the top of every core/plugin spec file, and omissions can cause some very confusing/sporadic errors.
By setting this flag in `.rspec`, we can remove the need for `require 'rails_helper'` entirely.
This allows text editors to use correct syntax coloring for the heredoc sections.
Heredoc tag names we use:
languages: SQL, JS, RUBY, LUA, HTML, CSS, SCSS, SH, HBS, XML, YAML/YML, MF, ICS
other: MD, TEXT/TXT, RAW, EMAIL
`poll` plugin was publishing on `/polls/[topic_id]` every time a non-first post was created. I can't imagine this being needed. It regressed 3 years ago in https://github.com/discourse/discourse/pull/6359
* DEV: Remove spec that we no longer need.
As far as we know, the migration has been successful for a number of
years.
* FIX: Validate number of votes allowed per poll per 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.
Some plugins hook into Post after save to set custom fields and save again.
For example: https://github.com/discourse/discourse-category-experts/blob/main/lib/category_experts/post_handler.rb#L27
Problem is that in case like that `raw_changed?` is false but all callback are triggered. `extracted_polls` is class atribute therefore that should be reset with each attempt.
That was causing an error:
```
#<ActiveRecord::RecordNotUnique: PG::UniqueViolation: ERROR: duplicate key value violates unique constraint
"index_polls_on_post_id_and_name" DETAIL: Key (post_id, name)=(8967, poll) already exists.
```
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
Headings with the exact same name generated exactly the same heading
names, which was invalid. This replaces the old code for generating
names for non-English headings which were using URI encode and resulted
in unreadable headings.
Poll markdown processing failed when there were any heading elements preceding a poll.
(Issue originally reported in babbebfb35 (commitcomment-42983768))
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.
This required properly plumbing the guardian into the serializer.
Notably, the default state in the client was not changed - if you haven't voted in
the poll, you need to click the button to view the results instead of the results
being immediately visible on page load.
Implements https://meta.discourse.org/t/-/138108
The bug was mentioned here: https://meta.discourse.org/t/poll-name/136436
I added specs to cover existing behaviour and refactored can_see_results method.
Guard condition should apply only if the poll result setting is set to `staff_only`.
In other cases, user can see results when the poll result setting is set to `always` or user voted or poll is closed.
