Users don't care about database content; they care about what they see
on the screen.
Writing tests this way we also avoid potencial database inconsistencies
due to accessing the database after starting the browser.
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.
The user experience with JavaScript enabled is actually very bad;
there's a usability issue here because it's impossible to change an
answer once a "radio button" is selected, which goes against the
standard practice on basically any HTML form.
Issue 4123 already mentions this problem. Until we fix it, we're
disabling JavaScript in these tests.
Using `<a>` tags with no `href` means these elements cannot be activated
by keyboard users, so we're replacing them with buttons.
In the future we probably want to add more consistency so all toggle
buttons use the same code. We might also add styles depending on the
`aria-expanded` property.
Now we check the given record or name is a relatable instance or class
to avoid trying to render goals for records which don't have a goals
association.
Note for now we are ignoring the case where we pass a controller_path
for an unsupported class (for example, `legislation/proposals` or
`budgets/headings`) because we never use it. We might need to revisit
this case in the future.
Co-Authored-By: Javi Martín <javim@elretirao.net>
On commit 1a902a96 we removed this helper to make use of polymorphic
routes but when it's called for Legislation::Proposal fails as the
namespace does not match the model namespace.
Now we recover the removed helper but only the parts that do not work
with polymorphic_url helper.
Co-Authored-By: Javi Martín <javim@elretirao.net>
I'm not sure why we were using squares to style these lists see commit
bbacd4546b) but I don't think it's very important and it breaks
displaying the list of related SDGs.
So tests won't fail when an institution changes the default organization
name.
The tests are also easier to understand now, since it's more obvious
where the "CONSUL" text is coming from.
It was removed in commit 128a8164 because we hadn't reviewed it nor
tested it properly. We're now adding it again, fixing the issues we've
found while reviewing.
We need to use page body event delegation so it will work with any
element even with the ones added through ajax, in this case the
annotation comments box form. By doing this way we do not need
this code on the server response anymore.
Furthermore JS events defined at ajax responses are not part of
application javascript and are lost when restoring a page from
browser cache, you can try to apply the same event delegation
technique to the `erb` file and it wont work just because events
added dinamically are not treated the same than `application.js`
code.
To reproduce the error:
1. Load an annotatable draft version
2. Move to any other page
3. Go back
Now "Publish comment" button wont work.
If we do not destroy annotator app before storing the page at
browser cache we will unnecesarily initialize annotations twice (or
more) duplicating Annotator HTML markup and causing
unexpected errors.
Without this commit you will find an error when restoring a page with
annotator, you can click on any annotation and you will see the annotation
comments are being loaded twice.
IMO this is an idempotency issue within Annotator JS library.
We were treating legislation proposals as if they were proposals,
omitting the "legislation" namespace, and so we were flagging/unflagging
proposals when we wanted to flag/unflag a legislation proposal.
