SoPN indication

[symroe]

This is a bucket'o'changes that all focus on some easy wins in the UI.

Some of them are in direct response to feedback we've got, some of them are things I noticed while working on the project. I'll try to break them out.

Icons

There are some areas where we use icons to indicate something. This is generally useful for power users (as most users are), but less useful for new users. We've moved to using both icon and text where we can.

Still TODO:

• Icons on suggest lock review form
• Mop up areas where we only use icons still
• Ensure we're using icon + text everywhere.

SOPN upload indication

Fixed a minor bug on the all elections page that didn't show if a SOPN was uploaded to a ballot.

This is written as "At present it’s not obvious whether a ballot has a SoPN or not" and is addressed in f9b4a1c.

Add candidates button on ballot page

I've made a number of changes here.

• For anonymous users I've hidden the 'add new candidate' button in the window between SOPN uploaded and the ballot being locked. This isn't a useful thing to ask someone to log in for, most of the time. 25129bb

• In ea384b8 I revert the earlier change to hide the button if we have a SOPN, but I do mark it as a secondary CTA. This means it's still possible, but it's not competing on the page to be the main CTA.

Move all SOPN related CTAs to the top of the page

When we have a SOPN we:

• Link to the above the table
• (If the ballot isn't locked) show a link to bulk add
• (If the user can lock and there is a suggestion) Show a link to the lock review form
• (If there is a SOPN) show a link to the suggest lock form
• (If the user can unlock) Show a link to the unlock form

This groups all the 'Do a thing with a SOPN' actions to one place, and hopefully makes things a little clearer.

[symroe]

Closes #756

[symroe]

One thing to note is that the template indenting is all over the place. I've had to disable my editor's indenting as it's going to change everything. Once this PR is in I'd like to shove djhtml in this project to keep it in line with other projects and do a big reformattting commit. Let's ignore indending for the time being.

[symroe]

@chris48s I'm calling this ready for review. There's loads to do when you start pulling at the thread, but I reckon this is a reasonable stopping point.

Reading the commit messages should be useful if not let me know and I'll amend them.

I've force pushed, but mainly to deal with linting errors when pushing a fixup wasn't useful.

I've been checking the whole process of a ballot from unlocked with no SOPN, to SOPN, to locked, via suggested locking. You'll either need two user accounts or to change the suggesting user to a different user ID after you suggest locking.

[chris48s]

Right. This is quite a difficult PR to review because there's so much going on I'm sure there are some situations affected by this PR that I haven't worked out how to get myself into, but I'll give it a go..

[chris48s]

In this case, I reckon put "add a new candidate" button at the bottom, rather than at the top.

Then if you expand the form, the "Save changes" button isn't next to a bunch of other primary buttons. It is clearer what to do next

[chris48s]

In this situation, I feel like the text explaining what is going on and the actions to take as a result are very disconnected.

[chris48s]

Once this PR is in I'd like to shove djhtml in this project to keep it in line with other projects and do a big reformattting commit. Let's ignore indending for the time being.

👍

[chris48s]

In your top post, there's one checklist item that is still un-checked:

(If the user can lock and there is a suggestion) Show a link to the lock review form

Is that intentional? It looks like that did get done to me

[symroe]

In your top post, there's one checklist item that is still un-checked:

(If the user can lock and there is a suggestion) Show a link to the lock review form

Is that intentional? It looks like that did get done to me

Sorry, no I should explain: this isn't done becuase it's going to get done later. We currently show a 'lock' button when there's a suggestion, but there's no deep link to the form at /moderation/suggest-lock/<ballot> at this stage. That's mainly because that URL doesn't exist yet, and I didn't want to get into adding it in this PR. It needs moving to a task on the PR that alters that review form.

[symroe]

In this case, I reckon put "add a new candidate" button at the bottom, rather than at the top.

Then if you expand the form, the "Save changes" button isn't next to a bunch of other primary buttons. It is clearer what to do next

2205600

[symroe]

In this situation, I feel like the text explaining what is going on and the actions to take as a result are very disconnected.

I agree wit this, but I'm not really sure what to do about it. I'm trying to move away from 'put everything at the top of the page' and I want to keep the status of the ballot in one place.

There aren't very many people who will see this code path, as there are ~100 people who can actually lock ballots.

So, I've added a callout panel and added some extra text to it. I don't really think this is beautiful, but it's not a lot worse than what we had before?

[chris48s]

I like the approach/design, but there's a couple of issues with the logic for showing and hiding it:

1. I am seeing this "lock suggested" callout even on ballots that are already locked

2. On ballots without a lock suggestion, I've got an empty box

Can you have a look at these bugs

[chris48s]

There's a few problems with "Add Candidates" buttons now:

1. There's a bit of a "wrong number of cells in the row" bug here

..but not always. Sometime it is in the right place:

Also, is the button supposed to sometimes be a different colour? What does the green vs grey signify?

---

2. I think we only need the button the once in this situation

Good catch on the welsh run ballots, I've fixed that.

With the duplicate buttons: this was some boolean logic parsing issues, it's not meant to show if there is a SOPN. I've fixed this too.

The colours remove focus when there's a SOPN: the main CTA is to bulk add not to add a single candidate, but as we agreed, it's still possible to do.

[chris48s]

Spotted a few more minor bugs here, but I think this is very close to done.

In general, this is making things better so I think fixing those and then getting it in front of some users is probably higher priority than further bikeshedding on some of the outstanding rough edges.

[chris48s]

I think this is enough better than what we have now and sufficiently not-broken that we can merge it.

That said, I reckon in a case like this one, where we have 1 or more candidates and a SOPN

"Add new candidate" is still in a sub-optimal place because you end up with 2 primary action buttons (the "save changes" and "suggest locking") next to each other at the bottom of the form that opens.

I think I'm fine if you just want to merge it and note this for another time.. but also fine if you want to go one more round to try and clear that up.

[symroe]

I think this is enough better than what we have now and sufficiently not-broken that we can merge it.

That said, I reckon in a case like this one, where we have 1 or more candidates and a SOPN

"Add new candidate" is still in a sub-optimal place because you end up with 2 primary action buttons (the "save changes" and "suggest locking") next to each other at the bottom of the form that opens.

I think I'm fine if you just want to merge it and note this for another time.. but also fine if you want to go one more round to try and clear that up.

I think that's sensible, but one thing I'm going to do after the initial bulk adding re-work is to prevent bulk-adding again after someone has gone through it once. At this stage we'll know if someone has gone through it at all, and I reckon we should hide / change the 'suggest' button, or maybe only allow people who can lock to see it.

Point is: I reckon I'll re-visit this later anyway. I'll clean this up and merge.