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.
IMHO this is also a bad practice for system tests, since these tests
should be checking what users experience.
In these cases, however, I haven't been able to test the user
experience. For example, it looks like failed census calls for
unregistered users aren't displayed anywhere and can only be accessed by
manually checking the database. Similarly, there's no interface showing
that all the options from a poll have been deleted (which makes sense,
since we only display options in the context of their poll) or a place
showing the responsible name for a proposal.
So we're splitting the tests in two, with the controller test running
the database checks.
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"
```
Having a class named `Poll::Question::Answer` and another class named
`Poll::Answer` was so confusing that no developer working on the project
has ever been capable of remembering which is which for more than a few
seconds.
Furthermore, we're planning to add open answers to polls, and we might
add a reference from the `poll_answers` table to the
`poll_question_answers` table to property differentiate between open
answers and closed answers. Having yet another thing named answer would
be more than what our brains can handle (we know it because we did this
once in a prototype).
So we're renaming `Poll::Question::Answer` to `Poll::Question::Option`.
Hopefully that'll make it easier to remember. The name is also (more or
less) consistent with the `Legislation::QuestionOption` class, which is
similar.
We aren't changing the table or columns names for now in order to avoid
possible issues when upgrading (old code running with the new database
tables/columns after running the migrations but before deployment has
finished, for instance). We might do it in the future.
I've tried not to change the internationalization keys either so
existing translations would still be valid. However, since we have to
change the keys in `activerecord.yml` so methods like
`human_attribute_name` keep working, I'm also changing them in places
where similar keys were used (like `poll_question_answer` or
`poll/question/answer`).
Note that it isn't clear whether we should use `option` or
`question_option` in some cases. In order to keep things simple, we're
using `option` where we were using `answer` and `question_option` where
we were using `question_answer`.
Also note we're adding tests for the admin menu component, since at
first I forgot to change the `answers` reference there and all tests
passed.
This rule was added in rubocop-capybara 2.19.0. We were following it
about 85% of the time.
Now we won't have to check both have_css and have_selector when
searching the code.
We need to update a couple of tests because a poll is created in the
tests with a timestamp that includes nanoseconds and in the form to edit
the time of the poll the nanoseconds are not sent, meaning it was
detected as a change.
Instead of having to add `beginning_of_minute` to deal with an issue
with Capybara filling datetime fields as mentioned in commit 5a0fde4048,
we can travel to the beginning of the minute so we don't have to take
the seconds into account.
We were already saving it as a time, but we didn't offer an interface to
select the time due to lack of decent browser support for this field
back when this feature was added.
However, nowadays all major browsers support this field type and, at the
time of writing, at least 86.5% of the browsers support it [1]. This
percentage could be much higher, since support in 11.25% of the browsers
is unknown.
Note we still need to support the case where this field isn't supported,
and so we offer a fallback and on the server side we don't assume we're
always getting a time. We're doing a strange hack so we set the field
type to text before changing its value; otherwise old Firefox browsers
crashed.
Also note that, until now, we were storing end dates in the database as
a date with 00:00 as its time, but we were considering the poll to be
open until 23:59 that day. So, in order to keep backwards compatibility,
we're adding a task to update the dates of existing polls so we get the
same behavior we had until now.
This also means budget polls are now created so they end at the
beginning of the day when the balloting phase ends. This is consistent
with the dates we display in the budget phases table.
Finally, there's one test where we're using `beginning_of_minute` when
creating a poll. That's because Chrome provides an interface to enter a
time in a `%H:%M` format when the "seconds" value of the provided time
is zero. However, when the "seconds" value isn't zero, Chrome provides
an interface to enter a time in a `%H:%M:%S` format. Since Capybara
doesn't enter the seconds when using `fill_in` with a time, the test
failed when Capybara tried to enter a time in the `%H:%M` format when
Chrome expected a time in the `%H:%M:%S` format.
To solve this last point, an alternative would be to manually provide
the format when using `fill_in` so it includes the seconds.
[1] https://caniuse.com/mdn-html_elements_input_type_datetime-local
This is consistent with the way we show the duration of a budget and its
phases. Since budgets are the section with the most recent changes in
the admin area, we're using it as a reference.
Note that, unlike budgets (which are shown to finish at the beginning of
their ending day), a poll has always been considered to finish at the
end of their ending day, so we're showing it this way.
We're also solving a minor usability issue. While it's pretty intuitive
that a poll starting on a certain date will start at the beginning of
the day, a poll ending on a certain date isn't clear about when it
finishes exactly: is it at the beginning of the day, or at the end of
the day?
So now we're making this point clear.
In some cases (e.g. after editing or creating a resource
with errors) the default back_link did not redirect to the
expected page.
Now we force the back_links to the index pages, so we
always get the desired redirect.
When we perform database queries in tests after the process running the
browser has started, we sometimes get failures in our test suite due to
both the tests and the browser accessing the database at the same time.
Furthermore, using `Poll.all` results in a database query, and doing so
after the process running the browser has started might result in
failures when running our test suite.
Links acting like buttons have a few disadvantages.
First, screen readers will announce them as "links". Screen reader users
usually associate links with "things that get you somewhere" and buttons
with "things that perform an action". So when something like "Delete,
link" is announced, they'll probably think this is a link which will
take them to another page where they can delete a record.
Furthermore, the URL of the link for the "destroy" action might be the
same as the URL for the "show" action (only one is accessed with a
DELETE request and the other one with a GET request). That means screen
readers could announce the link like "Delete, visited link", which is
very confusing.
They also won't work when opening links in a new tab, since opening
links in a new tab always results in a GET request to the URL the link
points to.
Finally, submit buttons work without JavaScript enabled, so they'll work
even if the JavaScript in the page hasn't loaded (for whatever reason).
For all these reasons (and probably many more), using a button to send
forms is IMHO superior to using links.
There's one disadvantage, though. Using `button_to` we create a <form>
tag, which means we'll generate invalid HTML if the table is inside
another form. If we run into this issue, we need to use `button_tag`
with a `form` attribute and then generate a form somewhere else inside
the HTML (with `content_for`).
Note we're using `button_to` with a block so it generates a <button>
tag. Using it in a different way the text would result in an <input />
tag, and input elements can't have pseudocontent added via CSS.
The following code could be a starting point to use the `button_tag`
with a `form` attribute. One advantage of this approach is screen
readers wouldn't announce "leaving form" while navigating through these
buttons. However, it doesn't work in Internet Explorer.
```
ERB:
<% content_for(:hidden_content, form_tag(path, form_options) {}) %>
<%= button_tag text, button_options %>
Ruby:
def form_id
path.gsub("/", "_")
end
def form_options
{ id: form_id, method: options[:method] }
end
def button_options
html_options.except(:method).merge(form: form_id)
end
Layout:
<%= content_for :hidden_content %> # Right before the `</body>`
```
System tests are about user experience, so instead of checking the slug
has been updated in the database, we check whether the page can be
accessed using the slug.
Note the budget group test is a bit different because the name of the
group isn't present in the budget group page.
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.
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.
Tests are easier to read now. Besides, since we changed the inputs in
the admin section so they don't use jQuery but an HTML date field,
formatting with %d/%m/%Y might not work depending on the browser's
locale.
We were repeating the same code over and over (with a few variants) to
setup tests which require an administrator. We can use a tag and
simplify the code.
There were places where we had two links pointing to the same place; one
link would be the name/title of a record, and one link would be under
the "actions" column.
This is confusing, since users would probably expect these links to
point to different places (which is what happens in other tables in the
admin section) and might try to click one of them and then the other
one and be surprised when they found out both of them go to the same
page.
