/numbers - Remove unhelpful comparisons with earlier elections #147
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
These comparisons were introduced when we just had the 2010 and 2015 UK elections on the site. Unfortunately, the code doesn't work now that there are also local election and by-elections in the database. It's better to just remove this feature than to present bizarre comparisons to users. The implementation would need to be completely rethought, and that's very low priority compared to the other things we're trying to get done in time for the 2017 General Election. This is an alternative to fixing the problems described in #106
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
These comparisons were introduced when we just had the 2010 and 2015
UK elections on the site. Unfortunately, the code doesn't work now that
there are also local election and by-elections in the database. It's
better to just remove this feature than to present bizarre comparisons
to users. The implementation would need to be completely rethought,
and that's very low priority compared to the other things we're trying
to get done in time for the 2017 General Election.
This is an alternative to fixing the problems described in #106