We were getting a warning with Ruby 2.7 due to the change in the way
keyword arguments are handled in Ruby 3.0.
```
ruby/gems/2.7.0/gems/rspec-support-3.11.0/lib/rspec/support/with_keywords_when_needed.rb:18:
warning: Passing the keyword argument as the last hash parameter is
deprecated
```
As hinted by the warning, this code crashes with Ruby 3.0:
```
ArgumentError:
unknown keyword: :budget_id
```
I'm not sure why this is the case, though, since we were already
explicitely passing a hash first before passing the keyword parameters.
I guess there are some cases in this whole keyword VS hash parameters
incompatibility that I haven't completely understood.
When voting investment projects, the sidebar was rendered without the
`@heading_content_blocks` being set. That resulted in a 500 error when
the heading had content blocks.
By extracting the logic to a component, we make sure the heading content
blocks are properly set every time this code is rendered, no matter
which controller is rendering the view.
This rule was added in Rubocop 1.18.0, but we didn't add it back then.
Since we're applying it most of the time, we might as well be consistent
and apply it everywhere.
We were checking that the price of the investment isn't present on the
page. However, the text "200" could be present in either the title of
the budget or the title of the heading ("Heading 200"), for instance. So
now we're making sure we look for the text on the relevant part of the
page.
We were getting some failures because sometimes the titles which are
generated automatically (like "Budget Investment 200 title") contained
the price of the investment, and so, when testing the presence of the
price (200, in this case), the test was failing.
So we're adding a custom title to the investments we create during the
tests.
We were testing that the `calculate_winners` method does not take the
price into account; we can do the same in a model test. We already have
a different system test to check that the price isn't displayed in the
view.
The test was always passing because incompatible investments are only
shown after clicking on the "Show all" link. So now we're clicking the
link before checking the "incompatibles" table isn't shown.
I don't think "incompatibles" is a valid English word; for now, I'm
leaving it like this until a native English speaker reviews it.
While reviewing commit 7702b551e, I forgot to test whether selecting
text in the budget header or clicking its link worked properly.
The negative index (-5) meant it was impossible to select its text or
click on its link.
The good news is the pseudoelement with a negative index (-1) is
considered a child of the .budget-header element, so having a negative
index will cause the pseudoelement to be render behind the content of
the .budget-header element but in front of the background of the
.budget-header element.
This is exactly what we want.
Originally, we didn't have a z-index in the .budget-header element,
meaning the pseudoelement was rendered behind the background of the
.budget-header element, meaning both backgrounds were visible. This was
OK when the background was a plain color, but it wasn't when the
background was an image.
To stress the fact that the budget header is only affected when we use
an image, I'm also moving the code inside the `.with-background-image`
selector, although it would be interesting to check whether it's a good
idea to add `z-index: 0` to the `full-width-background` mixin.
We forgot to do so in commit 04605d5d5. Before that commit, we were
testing the links weren't displayed in the "informing" phase as opposed
to the "finished" phase. After that commit, they weren't displayed
anywhere since a <select> field was shown instead.
Since then, we've replaced the <select> field with the links generated
by the `Budgets::Investments::FiltersComponent`. We've already got tests
for these links.
We're going to make a change, and it's easier if we've already got a
component with tests so we don't have to write system tests to check
whether the map is rendered.
We were showing the header when there were no search terms but there
were advanced search filters, unlike what we do for debates and
proposals. Besides, we were already hiding the header when there were
search terms, so it makes sense to hide it when using the advanced
search too.
We're using the `@search_terms` and `@advanced_search_terms` instance
variables in order to be consistent with what we do in the debates and
proposals sections.
When using the advanced search in the debates and proposals sections, we
were not displaying the search term in the search results summary.
However, we were displaying it when using the advanced search in the
investments section.
Now we're doing the same thing everywhere.
Defining a behavior on hover means making it different for people using
a keyboard or a touchscreen (most of the population, nowadays).
In this case, we had an accessibility issue where the message wouldn't
disappear once it appeared. That meant that, after tabbing through all
the links and buttons in, for instance, the debates index, the page
would be filled with "participation not allowed" messages, and in order
to see the information about how many people have voted, reloading the
page was required.
For touchscreen users the behavior was similar to what we get on hover,
although we've found some inconsistencies when trying to support several
elements on the same page.
We think in proposals it makes sense to hide the "support" button when
users click on it, and the same applies to the buttonsto support and
vote investment projects. However, we aren't hiding the buttons to
agree/disagree with a debate in order to keep the information about the
current number of people agreeing and disagreeing visible.
Note we're removing some support spec methods because after these
changes the duplication isn't as obvious as it was in the past.
As mentioned in commits 5311daadf and bb958daf0, using links combined
with JavaScript to generate POST requests to the server has a few
issues.
We're also improving the keyboard access. Previously, the links were
focusable and clickable with the keyboard. Now we're disabling the
buttons when voting isn't allowed.
Since these elements can no longer be focused, we're adding an element
with `tabindex="0"` so the "participation not allowed" message is shown,
like we do in most places.
Note we're slightly changing one test because now when hovering over the
button on Chrome, the "participation not allowed" text isn't shown; it's
only shown when hovering on the parts of the `div.ballot` element
outside the button. Since we're already rewriting the behavior of the
"participation not allowed" text in a different pull request, we aren't
going to fix this behavior.
So now:
* In the first few phases, no filters are shown (just like before)
* During the valuation phase, we show "Active" and "Unfeasible"
* During the final voting, we show "Active" (which now refers to the
selected investments), "Not selected for the final voting" and
"Unfeasible"
* When the budget is finished, we show "Winners", "Not selected for the
final voting" and "Unfeasible"
Now each investment is shown in one (and only one) of the filters
(except when the budget is finished; in this case we don't show selected
investments which didn't win), and we remove the confusing "Not
unfeasible" filter by only showing it during the valuation phase (before
filters are selected) and renaming it to "Active". We also rearrange the
filters so the default one for each phase is shown first.
The idea of using the "Active" text for investments which can be
selected during the selection phase and voted during the final voting is
experimental. Right now, for simplicity, since we assume filters will
always use the same text, we're removing the "Active" filter when the
budget is finished, since having both "Winners" and "Active" filters
would be confusing.
It was accidentally introduced in commit 756a16f67. Pronto didn't warn
us because in that commit we deleted the code where the `group` method
was used.
The link to "See all investments" didn't have the `heading_id`
parameter, which resulted in the ballot information not being displayed
when in the voting phase.
We could modify the link to include the `heading_id` parameter, but IMHO
it's more robust to select the heading automatically when there's only
one heading. That way manually accessing the page without a `heading_id`
parameter will still work as if the heading had been selected.
The interface was a bit confusing, since after clicking on "See
unfeasible investments" (or similar), we were on a page where no
investments were shown.
Besides, since commit 7e3dd47d5, the group page is only linked from the
"my ballot" page, through a link inviting the user to vote in that
group, and it's only possible to vote selected investments (which is the
default filter during the final voting phase).
The only reason we had these links here was these links weren't present
in the investments page. But they're present there since commit
04605d5d5, so we don't need them in the group page anymore.
Before the "valuating" phase, all investments have undecided feasibility
and none have been selected, so the filters would return no results
(except the "not_unfeasible" one, which would return everything).
We removed it in commit c322b2c4a because it was hard to know the
difference between "Feasible" and "Not unfeasible". We're renaming the
"Not unfeasible" filter instead.
We're also moving the "selected" filter so it appears before the
"unselected" filter, just like the "feasible" filter appears before the
"unfeasible" filter.
As mentioned in commit bc0f04075, a <select> field which submits its
form on change causes many accessibility and usability issues. In this
case there was also an incompatibility with the advanced search filter
which caused a bug solved in commit 541a5fa89.
So the question is where to position the filters and how to display
them. One factor to take into the account is how relevant these filters
are, particularly compared to the links to select the prefered order,
since we don't usually give users the choice of both filters and orders.
Our filters don't really make sense until the valuation phase starts,
since before that phase investments aren't selected nor their
feasibility is decided.
After that phase, the only phase where citizens are really involved
is the final voting; the rest of the phases are done by valuators and
administrators. In the final voting, citizens can only vote on selected
projects, and that's the default filter during that phase.
So these filters are mainly there for information purposes, and not to
help citizens in the phases where they're actually involved (accepting
projects, selecting projects and balloting).
Orders, on the other hand, play a crucial role during the final voting
phase. Since citizens might have already voted for a few projects and
have, let's say, 100,000€ left, ordering by price allows them to find
which projects are within their remaining budget.
In conclusion, orders are more important than filters, and so they
should have a more prominent place.
For consistency with the proposals section, where we've got some links
in the sidebar (bottom part of the page on small screens) providing a
similar funcionality, like accessing selected proposals or archived or
retired proposals, we're moving the investments filters to the sidebar
(bottom part of the page on small screens) as well.
These tests don't work without JavaScript. They were passing because the
`within` method always passes in component tests.
This reverts most of commit 822140a14.
We ended the test with two requests and no expectations. Debugging shows
sometimes the test was hanging forever [1], probably due to simultaenous
requests.
So now we're adding expectations after each request.
[1] https://github.com/consul/consul/runs/3687898744
Sometimes tests were hanging indefinitely. Debugging shows that in some
cases it's due to submitting a form before the AJAX request to get
proposals, debates or investments suggestions is finished, since having
an AJAX and a non-AJAX request at the same time when running the test
sometimes leads to unexpected results.
In our case, we were having many timeouts in Github Actions in the
branches where we use both ActiveStorage and Paperclip to store files
(based on pull request 4598). I can reproduce it in those branches
running the following test ("Should show new image after successful
creation with one uploaded file"), although only when my laptop isn't
plugged (!!):
```
rspec './spec/system/proposals_spec.rb[1:33:1:14]'
```
Since we didn't have a proper way to know the AJAX request had finished,
we're adding a `suggest-success` class to the element showing the
suggestions when that happens. Then in the tests we can look for that
class after filling in the title of a proposal, debate or investments.
Just for clarity's sake, we're also adding the `suggest-loading` class
when the suggestions are loading.
In order not to have expectations everywhere about the suggestions,
we're extracting methods to fill in those titles in the tests. Note we
aren't using these methods in the "edit" actions (suggestions are not
showing when editing) or in tests with the `no_js` tag (since
suggestions only work with JavaScript).
We were clicking links and visiting pages without checking the previous
request had already finished. This might cause concurrent requests,
leading to unpredictable results.
It might be the reason why this test failed once when running our
continuous integration [1].
[1] https://github.com/consul/consul/runs/3295502777
When render the investment list component with the link "see all
investments", now we redirect to groups index page when a budget has
multiple headings.
In general, slow system tests requiring no interaction from the user are
good candidates to be moved to component tests because component tests
are much faster.
In this case, the system tests were also updating the database after
starting the browser, which might cause concurrency issues. We could
split the test and have one system test per phase, but IMHO there's no
need.
We're still having a couple of system tests for the happy path, in order
to make sure users actually see the list of investments.
While we use Pronto to detect offenses in the lines changed in our pull
request, sometimes our changes introduce offenses in other lines, and we
don't detect them.
In commit 0488b3735, we removed the only usage of the `heading` method
in a test, which caused a `RSpec/LetSetup` offense.
In commit 287c48873, we changed some lines from `fill_in` to
`fill_in_ckeditor`. Some of these lines were aligned with the following
ones, which after that change had extra spacing for no reason.
Finally, in commit 8d38ed58c we added a line before two lines which had
their equals signs aligned. Since, after adding this line, the block was
no longer aligned, there was no reason for the extra space in one of the
lines.
Using `flex` instead of a fixed width for the navigation, the elements
take all the available space when the search form isn't present. That
wasn't the case before and produced a strange effect on medium-sized
screens.
This way we also align the search to the right.
As mentioned in commit 5214d89c8, there are several issues with
submitting a form when a `<select>` tag changes. In particular, keyboard
users might accidentally fire the event while browsing the options, and
screen reader users will find a form with no obvious way to submit it.
In this case, there's an extra problem: in commit be8a0dbe8 we added a
second `<select>` field to this form, which also submitted on change.
Sometimes users changed one of the values and wanted to change the other
value as well before submitting the form. However, it wasn't possible,
because we would submit it before they had a chance to change the second
value.
So now we don't submit the form on change and add a submit button. This
is similar to what we do in the "Advanced filters" we use in several
places.
Note we don't cast negative votes when users remove their support. That
way we provide compatibility for institutions who have implemented real
negative votes (in case there are / will be any), and we also keep the
database meaningful: it's not that users downvoted something; they
simply removed their upvote.
Co-Authored-By: Javi Martín <javim@elretirao.net>
Co-Authored-By: Julian Nicolas Herrero <microweb10@gmail.com>
