All these types of tests have already been grouped together in the
comments_specs file which contains different factories including
budget_investments.
I don't think it is necessary to maintain these tests.
The test "display administrator id on public views" is not correct. The valuation comments
are not display never on public views. If we reload this admin page we can see that the
description is render instead of administrator_id as we can see at the upper test:
```
scenario "display administrator description on admin views"
```
The deleted test was passed because there is an error at the moment to render the comments.
As we can see in the file ´app/views/comments/create.js.erb:10´ we try render comment
without valuation value:
```
App.Comments.add_comment(parent_id, "<li><%= j(render @comment) %></li>");
```
That it is necessary to render correctly the description or the id.
By other hand the test "public users not see admin description" is already being checked
in the 'system/comments_specs'. However, we are going to add a new expectation to
make sure that the admin description does not appear on the public pages.
Note that the click_link "Reply" is now inside a "within".
This is due to the case of "legislation_annotation" before in the original test
no comment was created as it simply took the one created by default when creating
a "legislation_annotation".
```
annotation = create(:legislation_annotation, author: citizen)
comment = annotation.comments.first
```
Now to try to unify this test, we always create a comment, and in this case as we
also created the "legislation_annotation" we have 2 comments, so it is necessary
to add the "click_link" inside the "within".
Note that the click_link "Reply" is now inside a "within".
This is due to the case of "legislation_annotation" before in the original test
no comment was created as it simply took the one created by default when creating
a "legislation_annotation".
```
annotation = create(:legislation_annotation, author: citizen)
comment = annotation.comments.first
```
Now to try to unify this test, we always create a comment, and in this case as we
also created the "legislation_annotation" we have 2 comments, so it is necessary
to add the "click_link" inside the "within".
Note that the click_link "Reply" is now inside a "within".
This is due to the case of "legislation_annotation" before in the original test
no comment was created as it simply took the one created by default when creating
a "legislation_annotation".
```
comment = annotation.comments.first
```
Now to try to unify this test, we always create a comment, and in this case as we
also created the "legislation_annotation" we have 2 comments, so it is necessary
to add the "click_link" inside the "within".
Note that the click_link "Reply" is now inside a "within".
This is due to the case of "legislation_annotation" before in the original test
no comment was created as it simply took the one created by default when creating
a "legislation_annotation".
```
annotation = create(:legislation_annotation, author: citizen)
comment = annotation.comments.first
```
Now to try to unify this test, we always create a comment, and in this case as we
also created the "legislation_annotation" we have 2 comments, so it is necessary
to add the "click_link" inside the "within".
Note that, in all cases except in :legislation_annotation, the behavior for
click_link is now slightly different.
Previously, the click_link outsite of within block meant that we made sure there
was only one link with that text in the whole page. Now, in order to unify this
spec we change the behaviour.
This rule was added in rubocop-capybara 2.19.0. We were following it
about 85% of the time.
Now we won't have to check both have_css and have_selector when
searching the code.
Note we're excluding a few files:
* Configuration files that weren't generated by us
* Migration files that weren't generated by us
* The Gemfile, since it includes an important comment that must be on
the same line as the gem declaration
* The Budget::Stats class, since the heading statistics are a mess and
having shorter lines would require a lot of refactoring
