We were very inconsistent regarding these rules.
Personally I prefer no empty lines around blocks, clases, etc... as
recommended by the Ruby style guide [1], and they're the default values
in rubocop, so those are the settings I'm applying.
The exception is the `private` access modifier, since we were leaving
empty lines around it most of the time. That's the default rubocop rule
as well. Personally I don't have a strong preference about this one.
[1] https://rubystyle.guide/#empty-lines-around-bodies
These variables can be considered a block, and so removing them doesn't
make the test much harder to undestand.
Sometimes these variables formed the setup, sometimes they formed an
isolated part of the setup, and sometimes they were the part of the test
that made the test different from other tests.
These settings are enabled by default.
It could be argued explicitely enabling the features makes tests more
consistent, because they'll work if we change the default setting. It
could also be argued that it makes tests more expressive because it
makes the reader realize certain things will only work if a setting is
enabled.
However, we were only doing so in a few tests. The truth is, thousands
of our tests depend on certain features being enabled. So IMHO we should
be consistent and either set them on every test, or not at all. I'm
choosing the latter option for simplicity.
Settings are stored in the database, and so any changes to the settings
done during the tests are automatically rolled back between one test and
the next one.
There were also a few places where we weren't using an `after` block but
changing the setting at the end of the test.
The `type: :feature` is automatically detected by RSpec because these
tests are inside the `spec/features` folder. Using `feature` re-adds a
`type: :feature` to these files, which will result in a conflict when we
upgrade to Rails 5.1's system tests.
Because of this change, we also need to change `background` to `before`
or else these tests will fail.
Why:
Somehow we're seeing communities without proposals at production. We
must find why and fix it, but first we need to throw a 404 at the user
instead of a 500 internal server error
How:
First catching the scenario of non-existent communitable at the
controller and raising a 404 error. Secondly preventing the author_id
access over a possibly nil object, this is a smell but it can't be
easily fixed right now... we need to correctly implement a relation
between Community and communitable and avoid the multiple occurences of
`community.from_proposal?` in the codebase that makes it impossible to
extend to a fourth communitable model.
