For the HashAlignment rule, we're using the default `key` style (keys
are aligned and values aren't) instead of the `table` style (both keys
and values are aligned) because, even if we used both in the
application, we used the `key` style a lot more. Furthermore, the
`table` style looks strange in places where there are both very long and
very short keys and sometimes we weren't even consistent with the
`table` style, aligning some keys without aligning other keys.
Ideally we could align hashes to "either key or table", so developers
can decide whether keeping the symmetry of the code is worth it in a
case-per-case basis, but Rubocop doesn't allow this option.
We were using `map_location` in one place and
`location-map-remove-marker` in another one. We usually use dashes in
HTML class names, we don't say "location map" anywhere else.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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>
Using links combined with JavaScript to generate POST requests to the
browser has a few issues.
An obvious one is that it doesn't work for users without JavaScript
enabled (which lately I've noticed are more common than I thought, even
though I've been one of them for years). These users will reach a 404
page.
Since CONSUL isn't currently designed to work without JavaScript
enabled, let's ignore this one for now.
A not so obvious issue is screen reader users might expect the link to
take them somewhere instead of performing an action (in this case,
sending a form to the server).
There might be more issues I'm unaware of. Quoting DHH [1]:
"Turning ahrefs into POSTs is a bit of an anti-pattern, especially for
a11y reasons. Better to use button_to with a styling."
So we're using a button instead. This way we can also simplify the code
and make the button disabled for unidentified users, which automatically
makes it impossible to focus it using the keyboard.
A possible disadvantage of using `button_to` is it will create a form
tag which will be announced to screen readers as a form landmark. I've
tested it with my screen reader and everything worked fine for me, but
some screen reader users might interact with these forms in a different
way and find it confusing, particularly in the case where the button is
disabled.
With this change, we're only changing links for buttons in one place.
There are other places where we should do similar changes.
[1] See issue 33 in https://github.com/hotwired/turbo-rails/
We meant to check that the link to support a different investment didn't
have an alert dialog. However, we were testing by trying to support the
same investment twice, and here there was no link at all, so the
assertion "there's no link with a dialog" always passed even when the
application didn't behave properly.
Now we check there's a link there, and that link doesn't have an
associated alert dialog.
Note one of the tests dealing with random results is a bit flaky; since
it's a permutation selecting 7 objects out of 12, it will fail about
once every 4 million times. We think this is acceptable.
Co-Authored-By: Julian Nicolas Herrero <microweb10@gmail.com>
In the form of creating a new investment was hiding the name of the
group if it had only one heading, but could be confusing to users if
there are, for example, five different groups of one heading.
The solution:
- If the budget has one group and one heading, the heading selector is
hidden.
- If the budget has one group and more than one heading, the group name
is hidden.
- If the budget has more than one group, the group name appears
regardless of the number of headings.
Note we're using an extra `<span>` element but we could use a CSS grid
layout instead. We're not using it because browser compatibility is only
94.56% at the time of writing.
We want to make sure the request is finished after clicking a button and
before visiting a different page, so we need to check the page has
changed.
Usually this shouldn't be a problem because most of our forms are sent
with regular HTTP requests instead of AJAX ones, so the `visit` method
wouldn't be called before the request is finished.
However, we're experiencing problems with certain version of
Chromedriver, and in general it's a good practice because we might send
forms using AJAX/Turbolinks in the future.
This way we avoid modifying the database in the middle of a system test
(after we've started the browser), which can lead to database
inconsistencies.
In the case of the reclassification specs we're simply removing part of
the test because that part is already tested by other specs.
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.
Content like lowercase letters with `text-transform: uppercase` or
spaces after elements with `display: block` or "You're on page:" are not
seen that way by users with a browser supporting CSS.
So we're testing what most users actually experience.
These fields are hidden for users with a browser supporting CSS and is
only there to fool bots, so we're testing the case of an attack by bots
using browsers with no CSS support.
Using `have_current_path`, Capybara waits until the condition is true,
while using `include` the expectation is evaluated immediately and so
tests might fail when using a driver supporting JavaScript.
Besides, using `have_current_path` the error message is more readable
when the test fails.
System tests are used to test the application from the user's point of
view. To test for specific exceptions, particularly regarding
authorization permissions, controller tests fit better.
Another option would be to test the page displayed shows a certain text,
like "Internal server error". I'm choosing controller tests because
they're faster and we're basically testing the same scenario many times
and we've already got a test checking what happens when users access a
page raising an exception.
Even if we usually only access these pages for the current budget, that
might not always be the case, and now that we've unified budget landing
pages, there's no point in them pointing to the index anymore.
