During migration of Poll plugin from widget basis to glimmer, some functionality was inadvertently dropped:
- A single button should appear instead of the dropdown menu when there is only one valid "poll admin" action
- No button should appear when there are no valid "poll admin" actions for current user
This PR restores the original behaviour and adds test coverage (that didn't exist prior to migration, partly why it wasn't caught earlier)
relates to #27204
related meta topic: https://meta.discourse.org/t/what-is-the-gear-button-under-the-poll-for/315477/2
Fixes a flaky test. `afterUpdate` from chart.js is not integrated with the runloop and component lifecycle, as a result we have no guarantee on when it will happen. The easiest change we can do for now is ensuring we actually have the DOM we expect to have, and if not, we exit early.
Co-authored-by: Joffrey JAFFEUX <j.jaffeux@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: merefield <merefield@gmail.com>
The "migration to Glimmer" has been broken out here from #27155 to make the review process less onerous and reduce change risk:
* DEV: migrates most of the widget code to Glimmer in prep for IRV additions
* NB This already incorporates significant amounts of review and feedback from the prior PR.
* NB because there was significant additional feedback relating to older Poll code that I've improved with feedback, there are some additional changes here that are general improvements to the plugin and not specific to IRV nor Glimmer!
* There should be no trace of IRV code here.
Once this is finalised and merged we can continue to progress with #27155.
Whenever a post already failed "lightweight" validations, we skip all the expensive validations (that cooks the post or run SQL queries) so that we reply as soon as possible.
Also skip validating polls when there's no "[/poll]" in the raw.
Internal ref - t/115890
Using min_trust_to_create_topic and create_topic_allowed_groups together was part of #24740
Now, when plugins specs are fixed, we can safely remove that part of logic.
I took the wrong approach here, need to rethink.
* Revert "FIX: Use Guardian.basic_user instead of new (anon) (#24705)"
This reverts commit 9057272ee2.
* Revert "DEV: Remove unnecessary method_missing from GuardianUser (#24735)"
This reverts commit a5d4bf6dd2.
* Revert "DEV: Improve Guardian devex (#24706)"
This reverts commit 77b6a038ba.
* Revert "FIX: Introduce Guardian::BasicUser for oneboxing checks (#24681)"
This reverts commit de983796e1.
c.f. de983796e1
There will soon be additional login_required checks
for Guardian, and the intent of many checks by automated
systems is better fulfilled by using BasicUser, which
simulates a logged in TL0 forum user, rather than an
anon user.
In some cases the use of anon still makes sense (e.g.
anonymous_cache), and in that case the more explicit
`Guardian.anon_user` is used
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
