As mentioned in commits like a586ba806, a7664ad81, 006128da5, b41fbfa52
and c480cdd91, accessing the database after starting the browser with
the `visit` method sometimes results in database corruption and failing
tests on our CI due to the process running the test accessing the
database after the process running the browser has started.
In these cases, there's no need to check the database; we're already
checking the application behavior that shows that the voters have been
correctly created.
We can reuse the `officing_verify_residence` method to make the test
easier to read.
We're also removing the final visit to final_officing_polls_path because
it doesn't really add anything to the test.
We're removing the word "email" from the method name because the method
was accepting either an email or a username, and we're using the name of
the label to fill in fields, which is better because it checks that the
label is correctly associated with the field , as shown for instance in
commit 431ebeda8.
We were always passing `officer.user` to this method, so we might as
well pass the officer (since the "officer" is in the name of the method)
and call `officer.user` inside the method.
We're also calling `login_through_form_as` in order to remove the
duplication between these two methods.
As mentioned in commits like a586ba806, a7664ad81, 006128da5, b41fbfa52
and c480cdd91, accessing the database after starting the browser with
the `visit` method sometimes results in database corruption and failing
tests on our CI due to the process running the test accessing the
database after the process running the browser has started.
In this case, we're avoiding the usage of `user.subscriptions_token` and
`Comment.last`. In the future, we should probably simplify these tests
by moving most of the checks to a mailer test.
As mentioned in commits like a586ba806, a7664ad81, 006128da5, b41fbfa52
and c480cdd91, accessing the database after starting the browser with
the `visit` method sometimes results in database corruption and failing
tests on our CI due to the process running the test accessing the
database after the process running the browser has started.
Note that, in this case, in order to make the tests more readable, we're
adding a bit of duplication. We should probably simplify these tests by
moving most of the checks to mailer tests and then we could remove the
duplication. The alternative would be to make the
`create_direct_message` method way more complex than it is right now.
As mentioned in commits like a586ba806, a7664ad81, 006128da5, b41fbfa52
and c480cdd91, accessing the database after starting the browser with
the `visit` method sometimes results in database corruption and failing
tests on our CI due to the process running the test accessing the
database after the process running the browser has started.
For example, one of these tests has recently failed on our CI:
```
3) Users Create a level 3 user with email from scratch
Failure/Error: expect(user.reload).to be_confirmed
expected `#<User id: 2060, email: "pepe@gmail.com", created_at:
"2025-03-12 19:51:03.688867000 +0100", updated_...d_debates: true,
recommended_proposals: true, subscriptions_token: nil,
registering_from_web: false>.confirmed?` to be truthy, got false
```
IMHO this is also a bad practice for system tests, since these tests
should be checking what users experience.
So we're modifying the tests to check the results of users interaction
from the point of view of the users. For example, instead of checking
that a user is now level 3 verified in the database, we're checking that
the user interface states that the user is level 3 verified.
Note we're adding an offset when editing the map marker by clicking on
`map-location` with `.click(x: 30, y: 30)`. This way we make sure that
both the latitude and longitude change from the original values; we used
to clicking in the middle (no offset), which didn't change the longitude
and changed the latitude just by coincidence.
Also note we aren't changing tests with the `:no_js` tag, since these
tests don't run a real browser in a separate process. In the future, we
should also change most of these tests so they don't access the database
and they use a real browser.
We weren't checking that the requests had finished before checking the
last sent email. That's probably why one of these tests has recently
failed on our CI:
```
1) System Emails Preview Pending #send_pending
Failure/Error: email = open_last_email
RuntimeError:
No email has been sent!
```
These tests don't use the browser to send emails since commit e21588ec1.
However, note that this commit actually actually decreased our test
coverage somehow; since then, we're no longer testing whether we send an
email to the author after clicking the "Publish comment" button. We
might need to add a test for this in the `spec/system/comments_spec.rb`
file... but that's a story for another time.
Note we need to stub the `deliver_later` method; otherwise,
`open_last_email` would raise an exception since no email would have
been delivered.
We're moving them now because these tests use the `open_last_email`
method, and we're looking for places where using this method might
result in a flaky test when used inside a system test.
In most tests calling this method, we were doing another visit right
after calling this method, so by removing this `visit` call we're making
the tests slightly faster and easier to follow.
We weren't checking that the request caused by clicking on the "Send
instructions" button had finished before continuing with the test.
Perhaps that's why this test has recently failed on our CI:
```
3) Emails Reset password
Failure/Error: email = open_last_email
RuntimeError:
No email has been sent!
```
We're also adding an expectation to the `login_as_manager` method and
the methods to submit proposal and investment forms to make sure that,
when these method finish, the request finishes as well.
There were many cases where we were clicking on a link or (most of the
time) a button and then calling the `visit` method. In the past, it
worked just fine because clicking on buttons usually results in non-AJAX
requests, meaning that the test waited for the request to finish before
continuing.
That's no longer the case, though. In the last few months/years (not
sure since when) we're getting sporadic failures because the test
doesn't wait for the request to finish before making another request
with the `visit` method. This sometimes results in flaky tests.
Some of these tests have recently failed in our CI. Here are a few
examples (note the numbers don't follow an order because these tests
failed in different jobs):
```
1) Admin edit translatable records Current locale translation does not
exist For ActivePoll Shows first available fallback
Failure/Error: expect(page).to have_content "Sondage en Français"
expected to find text "Sondage en Français" in "Language: \n
\nEnglish\nDeutsch\nEspañol\nFrançais\nNederlands\nPortuguês
brasileiro\n中文\n Go back to CONSUL DEMOCRACY\nCONSUL
DEMOCRACY\nADMINISTRATION\nMenu\nNotifications\nMy content\nMy
account\nSign out\nProposals\nDebates\nComments\nPolls\n
Collaborative Legislation\nParticipatory budgets\nVoting booths
\nSignature Sheets\nMessages to users\nSite content\nModerated
content\nProfiles\nStatistics\nSettings\nProposals dashboard\n×
\nPolls description updated successfully.\nList of polls\nPolls
description\nCreate poll\nThere are no polls."
2) Public area translatable records Existing records Update a
translation With valid data Changes the existing translation
Failure/Error: expect(page).to have_field "Debate title",
with: "Title in English"
expected to find field "Debate title" that is not disabled but
there were no matches
2) Admin collaborative legislation Update Edit milestones summary
Failure/Error: expect(page).to have_content "There is still a long
journey ahead of us"
expected to find text "There is still a long journey ahead of us"
in "Language: \n
\nEnglish\nDeutsch\nEspañol\nFrançais\nNederlands\nPortuguês
brasileiro\n中文\n Go back to CONSUL DEMOCRACY\nCONSUL
DEMOCRACY\nADMINISTRATION\nMenu\nNotifications\nMy content\nMy
account\nSign out\nProposals\nDebates\nComments\nPolls\n
Collaborative Legislation\nParticipatory budgets\nVoting booths
\nSignature Sheets\nMessages to users\nSite content\nModerated
content\nProfiles\nStatistics\nSettings\nProposals dashboard\n×
\nProcess updated successfully. Click to visit\nBack\nAn example
legislation process\nInformation\nHomepage\nDebate\nProposals\n
Drafting\nFollowing\n1 language in use\nCurrent language\n
English\nSummary\n Format\n ◢\n Milestone\nManage progress
bars\nDon't have defined milestones\nCreate new milestone".
(However, it was found 1 time including non-visible text.)
3) Admin collaborative legislation SDG related list create Collaborative
Legislation with sdg related list
Failure/Error:
within("tr", text: "Legislation process with SDG related content") do
expect(page).to have_css "td", exact_text: "17"
end
Capybara::ElementNotFound:
Unable to find css "tr"
4) Valuation budget investments Valuate Feasibility can be marked as
pending
Failure/Error: expect(find("#budget_investment_feasibility_undecided"))
.not_to be_checked
Capybara::ElementNotFound:
Unable to find css "#budget_investment_feasibility_undecided"
3) Custom information texts Show custom texts instead of default ones
Failure/Error:
within("#section_help") do
expect(page).to have_content "Custom help with debates"
expect(page).not_to have_content "Help with debates"
end
4) Admin budgets Update Deselect all selected staff
Failure/Error: expect(page).to have_link "Select administrators"
expected to find link "Select administrators" but there were no
matches
3) Admin polls SDG related list edit poll with sdg related list
Failure/Error:
within("tr", text: "Upcoming poll with SDG related content") do
expect(page).to have_css "td", exact_text: "17"
end
Capybara::ElementNotFound:
Unable to find css "tr"
4) Admin polls SDG related list create poll with sdg related list
Failure/Error:
within("tr", text: "Upcoming poll with SDG related content") do
expect(page).to have_css "td", exact_text: "17"
end
Capybara::ElementNotFound:
Unable to find css "tr"
5) Admin custom images Image is replaced on admin newsletters
Failure/Error:
within(".newsletter-body-content") do
expect(page).to have_css("img[src*='logo_email_custom.png']")
end
Capybara::ElementNotFound:
Unable to find css ".newsletter-body-content"
6) Admin custom images Image is replaced on front views
Failure/Error:
within("#map") do
expect(page).to
have_css("img[src*='custom_map.jpg'][alt='Districts list']")
end
Capybara::ElementNotFound:
Unable to find css "#map"
```
Make `path`, `fill_resource_method_name`, `submit_button`, and
`imageable_success_notice` dynamic based on the factory.
Also adjusted the user. The proposals no longer require the user to be an
administrator but do require them to be a level 2 user.
Note that we are adding the Style/CaseLikeIf rubocop rule.
Removed `imageable_path_arguments`, `has_many_images`, and `management` parameters
because they are not used by budgets.
Hardcoded `path`, `fill_resource_method_name`, `submit_button`, and
`imageable_success_notice`parameters for budgets. These remain fixed for now until dynamic
values are required in the next commits.
The default `date_select` used in fields presents an accessibility
issue, because in generates three select controls but only one label.
That means that there are two controls without a label.
So we're using a date field instead. This type is field is supported by
about 99% of the browsers, and we've already got JavaScript code
converting this field to a jQuery UI datepicker in case the browser
doesn't support date fields.
Note that, since we no longer need to parse the three date fields into
one, we can simplify the code in both the models and the tests.
Another slight improvement is that, previously, we couldn't restrict the
month and day controls in order to set the minimum date, so the maximum
selectable date was always the 31st of December of the year set by the
minimum age setting. As seen in the component test, now that we use only
one field, we can set a specific date as the maximum one.
- Introduced `run_graphql_field` in tests that focus on resolving specific fields, leveraging the method added in GraphQL 2.2.0.
- Continued using `execute` for broader cases where it is still necessary to test entire GraphQL queries.
Back in commit c984e666f, we reorganized the code related to the GraphQL
API, but we didn't reorganize the tests.
So we're doing it now, since we're going to fix a potential issue and
add some tests for it.
Using the `document` or `documents` classes meant styles defined for the
public list of documents conflict with these ones.
So now we're using HTML classes that match the name of the Ruby
component classes, as we usually do.
We were using the same code for the button in both the public and admin
headers, so we're removing the duplication.
Since the menu and the button must go together, and the contents of the
menu are different for different layouts, we're passing these contents
using a block.
Note the ID of the menu was `responsive-menu` in the public section but
`responsive_menu` in the admin section. Since we usually use underscores
for IDs and dashes for classes, we're keeping the one with the
underscore.
By using the Rails `button_to` helper (which generates a form), and adapting the
response to `html` and `js` formats, the feature works with or without javascript
enabled.
We were doing a `mappable.map_location` call in an `expect` which might
result in a database queries. Doing database queries in a test after the
process running the browser has started might result in exceptions while
running our test suite.
This way we don't have to write `"spec/fixtures/files"` every time.
Note this method isn't included in factories. We could include it like
so:
```
FactoryBot::SyntaxRunner.class_eval do
include ActiveSupport::Testing::FileFixtures
self.file_fixture_path = RSpec.configuration.file_fixture_path
end
```
However, I'm not sure about the possible side effects, and since we only
use attachments in a few factories, there isn't much gain in applying
the monkey-patch.
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.
Hovering over the votes showed a "participation not allowed" message
which was annoying when scrolling with the browser or simply moving the
mouse around the page. Furthermore, it hid the information about the
number of votes, links to show/collapse replies, ...
We're planning to change the behavior of all the "participation not
allowed" messages in order to show them on click instead of showing them
on hover (just like it's done on touchscreens). In the case of comments,
supports, however, there's very limited space in the part showing the
number of supports for comments, so adding this message without breaking
the layout is challenging.
So, for now, we're simply redirecting unauthenticated users to the login
page. If find an easy way to implement a better user interface in the
future to display the "participation not allowed" message, we might
change this behaviour.
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.
We take the comment as a parameter instead of the user, since usually
people reply to comments and not to users.
We also remove one database query after the browser has started, since
we can use `debate_path(debate)`. It's also more clear why we're using
`debate_path` in the test; before these changes, we had to enter the
`reply_to` method to realize that we were replying on a debate.
