This way we remove duplication.
Note that to check whether to render the button to remove a marker,
we're checking whether the map location belongs to a mappable. This
means we're changing the code that renders the map in the "new proposal"
and "new investment" forms so the map location belongs to a proposal or
investment. We're association the map location to a new record because
writing something like:
```
def map_location
proposal.map_location || MapLocation.new(proposal: proposal)
end
```
Would change the `proposal` object because of the way Rails treats
non-persisted `has_one` associations. Although probably safe in this
case, changing an object when rendering a view could have side effects.
Also note that we're changing the HTML ID of the map element from
`admin-map` to `new_map_location` (the latter is returned by the
`dom_id` method). We were only using this ID in tests since commit
289426c1c, so changing it doesn't really affect us.
People using these settings don't know about the hidden fields, but they
do know about the fields that are actually displayed on the page. So we
check that these fields are updated when the marker is updated.
Before this change, two important things depend on the format of each key,
where to render it in the administration panel and which kind of interface
to use for each setting. Following this strategy led us to a very complex
code, very difficult to maintain or modify. So, we do not want to depend
on the setting key structure anymore to decide how or where to render each
setting.
With this commit, we get rid of the key format-based rules. Now we render
each setting explicitly passing to it the type and the tab where it belongs.
On the Configuration settings page three settings appeared without
description:
* Comments Summary: No description.
* Related Content: No description.
* Tags: No description.
These settings are related with the AI / Machine learning feature. They
only should appear on AI / Machine learning setting page when the
feature is enabled.
It looks like these lines were added on a branch which didn't include
commit 3da4ee00b but were merged after that commit was merged.
In any case, since we're already using the `:admin` tag in the whole
file, these lines aren't necessary.
These fields have no label associated to them. While it's more or less
obvious for sighted users that these fields are associated with the
table cell next to them, visually impaired users might not get that
association when using the screen reader in forms mode.
Note we're using `aria-label` instead of `aria-labelledby`. IMHO in this
case `aria-labelledby` is the superior method because it guarantees the
text is present for both sighted and visually impaired users. However,
testing for fields with no label other than the one provided by
`aria-labelledby` is hard since Capybara has no support for this
attribute.
So we're using `aria-label` and testing the presence of the text on the
page (with the `within "tr", text:` statements) as well as the ARIA
label (with the `fill_in` statements).
Having to wait for a whole page refresh after updating each setting was
painful when modifying several settings.
Even though the navigation is updated immediately to reflect which
sections have been enabled/disabled, there's one gotcha. Changing the
"SDG" setting will not update the user menu (which contains a link to
SDG content) nor the "SDG Configuration" tab; refreshing the page will
be necessary to check these changes. The same happens with the map and
remote census tabs. So in these cases we're making an exception and
sending the form. We might find a better solution in the future.
For this reason, we aren't using the `switch` ARIA role. Some users
might not expect a switch control to refresh the page, just like they
usually don't expect checkboxes to refresh the page. Furthermore, screen
reader support for the `switch` role seems to be inconsistent. For
instance, NVDA with Chrome announces the control as a checkbox instead
of a switch.
Note AJAX is only used for feature settings. Other settings are still
updated with regular HTTP requests.
Since we're now using AJAX requests, we have to make sure to add an
expectation in the homepage tests in order to make sure the request has
finished before starting a new one.
We were using buttons with the "Enable" and "Disable" texts to
enable/disable settings. However, when machine learning settings were
introduced in commit 4d27bbeba, a switch control was introduced to
enable/disable them.
In order to keep the interface consistent, we're now using switch
controls in other sections where settings are enabled/disabled. We can
even use the same code in the machine learning settings as well.
We're also removing the confirmation dialog to enable/disable a setting,
since the dialog is really annoying when changing several settings and
this action can be undone immediately. The only setting which might need
a confirmation is the "Skip user verification" one; we might add it in
the future. Removing the confirmation here doesn't make things worse,
though; the "Are you sure?" confirmation dialog was also pretty useless
and users would most likely blindly accept it.
Note Capybara doesn't support finding a button by its `aria-labelledby`
atrribute. Ideally we'd write `click_button "Participatory budgeting"`
instead of `click_button "Yes"`, since from the user's point of view the
"Yes" or "No" texts aren't button labels but indicators of the status of
the setting. This makes the code a little brittle since tests would pass
even if the element referenced by `aria-labelledby` didn't exist.
There were duplicate IDs and the `lines` attribute doesn't do anything
for textareas (I guess it was accidentally used instead of the `rows`
attribute; I'm just removing it so the page looks the same way it did
until now).
Even though the `value` field didn't generate duplicate IDs, we're also
changing it because we usually set an element with the `dom_id` of a
record when it contains the whole information about a record, and not
just one piece of it. For instance, in some places we assign this ID to
the table row related to the record.
JavaScript is used by about 98% of web users, so by testing without it
enabled, we're only testing that the application works for a very
reduced number of users.
We proceeded this way in the past because CONSUL started using Rails 4.2
and truncating the database between JavaScript tests with database
cleaner, which made these tests terribly slow.
When we upgraded to Rails 5.1 and introduced system tests, we started
using database transactions in JavaScript tests, making these tests much
faster. So now we can use JavaScript tests everywhere without critically
slowing down our test suite.
The test was creating a new "upload.images" setting instead of using
"uploads.images". It passed because it wasn't using JavaScript but was
configuring the wrong setting.
We're improving the readability of the ones we're about to modify.
Using human texts makes tests easier to read and guarantees we're
testing from the user's point of view. For instance, if we write
`fill_in banner_target_url`, the test will pass even if the field has no
label associated to it. However, `fill_in "Link"` makes sure there's a
field with an associated label.
We were repeating the same code over and over (with a few variants) to
setup tests which require an administrator. We can use a tag and
simplify the code.
This rule was added in rubocop-rspec 1.39.0. The `visible: false` option
is equivalent to `visible: :all`, but we generally use it meaning
`visible: :hidden` for positive expectations and `visible: :all` for
negative expectations.
The only exceptations are tests where we count the number of map icons
present. I'm assuming in this case we care about the number of map icons
independently on whether they are currently shown in the map, so I'm
keeping the `visible: :all` behavior in this case.
By default, Capybara only finds visible elements, so adding the
`visible: true` option is usually redundant.
We were using it sometimes to make it an obvious contrast with another
test using `visible: false`. However, from the user's perspective, we
don't care whether the element has been removed from the DOM or has been
hidden, so we can just test that the visible selector can't be found.
Besides, using `visible: false` means the test will also pass if the
element is present and visible. However, we want the test to fail if the
element is visible. That's why a couple of JavaScript-dependant tests
were passing even when JavaScript was disabled.
Its known that initializing a map when it is inside a hidden element
wont work when hidden element is shown, so its makes sense to
avoid initialization of hidden maps.
When a map lives within a hidden layer we need to initialize the
map after the event of showing that hidden layer, in our case when
admin settings tab is shown.
