Feature: Renting manager role

[Ellen-Wittingen]

Added a role for renting managers with which they have the following permissions:

• Activities
  • See a list of all activities, also the ones that are locked
  • Create, edit, and delete activities
  • View an activity, including the tabs "Samenvatting", "Bestellingen", and "Producttotalen"
  • Access the order screen and place orders with it, but credit mutations (Geld inleggen)
• Invoices
  • See a list of all invoices
  • View an invoice, but not edit or send it
• Pricelists
  • See a list of all unarchived pricelists and the prices for each product, but not edit
• Users
  • See a list of all manually added users, but not from AMBER except for themselves
  • View a manually added user and their credit, orders, and credit mutations

The following permissions were changed for main bartenders (after talking to Soccie):

• Activities: In the activity view, only the tabs "Samenvatting" and "Producttotalen" can be viewed now.

I also added tests for the new renting-manager role and added some tests that were missing for some controllers. The syntax used is a bit inconsistent across tests (also in the already existing tests), I will fix this in some another pull request in the future.

To easily log in as the different roles, I added new users to the seeding of AMBER-API which are linked to SOFIA roles in the seeding of SOFIA, see #412

[lodewiges]

What does this mean?
and why is the change needed?

[Ellen-Wittingen]

A user with the renting manager role can also access this page. However, they are not allowed to send an invoice, so for them the url should not appear on the page. So we check here with the policy for invoices (described in app/policies/invoice_policy.rb) whether the person accessing the page is allowed to send an invoice

[Ellen-Wittingen]

Before this there was no renting manager role, so the check was unnecessary as only treasurers (who are allowed to send invoice) could access this page

[lodewiges]

could this be rewrite so it is not a "unless not"statement to improve readabilty

[lodewiges]

Suggested change

	<% unless !policy(Invoice).send_invoice? || @invoice.paid? %>
	<% if policy(Invoice).send_invoice? && !@invoice.paid? %>

[lodewiges]

I tested and it looks good, you said in the description that test are not written in a consistent way. Could you elaborate on that so it can be fixed in the future? Sorry, it took so long to review it hopefully things improve in the future. for now Good Work Ellen.

[lodewiges]

I don't completely understand how this request works?

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 90.62500% with 6 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Please upload report for BASE (staging@465dc99). Learn more about missing BASE report.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
app/policies/activity_policy.rb	69.23%	4 Missing ⚠️
app/policies/price_list_policy.rb	87.50%	1 Missing ⚠️
app/policies/user_policy.rb	66.66%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             staging     #916   +/-   ##
==========================================
  Coverage           ?   75.15%           
==========================================
  Files              ?       55           
  Lines              ?     1115           
  Branches           ?        0           
==========================================
  Hits               ?      838           
  Misses             ?      277           
  Partials           ?        0           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[lodewiges]

nevermind my bug fix broke the tests

i broke tests