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.
There was a big difference between the current budget and a specific
budget landing page. This didn't really make too much sense. Also, it
was not possible to know how a draft participatory budget will look
before it was published.
By unifying those two views now they will look quite similar and it
will be possible for administrators to preview any draft budget and to
know how the budget will look like before actually publishing it.
Using the name instead of using the name and the price is IMHO more
consistent with the rest of the application, particularly for screen
reader users. Writing texts clicking those links is also easier.
I think the main reason why we used the price as part of the link was so
the clickable area was bigger. We can accomplish the same result with
CSS.
Now it's easier to change the investments filter. Previously we had to
go back to the budget index page, change the filter there, and then
select one heading.
Now the links to change the current filter in the budget index page
aren't needed anymore.
We were doing the same tests three times to test the advanced search
feature. I'm grouping them in one place and shuffling the sections
around to remove duplication and make the test suite faster.
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.
This rule was added in rubocop-rspec 1.39.0. The `visible: false` option
is equivalent to `visible: :all`, but we generally use it meaning
`visible: :hidden` for positive expectations and `visible: :all` for
negative expectations.
The only exceptations are tests where we count the number of map icons
present. I'm assuming in this case we care about the number of map icons
independently on whether they are currently shown in the map, so I'm
keeping the `visible: :all` behavior in this case.
