We only need to define one `in_browser`, which is the one opening the
session as an administrator.
This change is done to simplify the code, although there's a small
chance it might also make the test stop failing in our CI. Sometimes in
our CI the first `visit` in the `in_browser(:admin)` block fails for
unknown reasons, rendering a blank page.
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.
It's strange to create records without assigning them to a variable and
then query the database to fetch the very same records. Assigning them
to a variable makes the tests easier to understand.
Besides, this way we avoid querying the database after the browser has
started.
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.
Even after the previous changes, this test is still failing sometimes
(although now it fails for a different reason). We're doing this change
in order to discard it as the reason why the test is failing.
There seems to be an issue with capybara or chromedriver which results
in `fill_in` sometimes appending to an input rather than overwriting
[1], causing some tests to fail under certain circumstances.
Clearing fields before filling them in solves the issue.
Note we're now getting warnings on all tests using the rack driver. I
haven't found a way to avoid the `clear: :backspace` option in
non-JavaScript tests, so to avoid the annoying warnings we should reduce
the number of tests using the rack driver even more.
[1] See issue 2419 in https://github.com/teamcapybara/capybara/issues
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.
The method `formatted_heading_price` depends on the current locale. When
we make a request to `visit budgets_path locale: :es`, the request
modifies `I18n.locale` as well.
However, if we use JavaScript tests, the process running the test is
different than the process handling the request, and so the change in
`I18n.locale` does not affect the test.
Checking against the actual value we expect makes the test work with and
without JavaScript.
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.
Note we're absolutely positioning the link instead of the icon; that way
keyboard users will be able to focus on the icon. Until now, users would
focus on an empty link.
For the same reason, we couldn't use `click_link` with Capybara, since
it would fail to click an empty link. Now we can.
Co-authored-by: Javi Martín <javim@elretirao.net>
Since the `@ballot_referer` variable was only set in the lines
controller, it didn't work when we accessed the ballot page without
adding a line.
Note it still doesn't work if we access the ballot page directly by
entering the URL in the browser's address bar.
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.
It was added because a test failed without turbolinks. However, writing
the test so it doesn't update the database at the same time the browser
is doing a request also solves the problem and makes the test more
robust.
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.
There were some issues using `.budget.expanded`, like a link having that
class which would force us to a `:not(.button)` selector or similar,
making the CSS more complex.
Previously the draft mode was a phase of the PB, but that had some
limitations.
Now the phase drafting disappears and therefore the PB can have the
status published or not published (in draft mode).
That will give more flexibility in order to navigate through the
different phases and see how it looks for administrators before
publishing the PB and everybody can see.
By default, the PB is always created in draft mode, so it gives you
the flexibility to adjust and modify anything before publishing it.
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.
By default, Capybara only finds visible elements, so adding the
`visible: true` option is usually redundant.
We were using it sometimes to make it an obvious contrast with another
test using `visible: false`. However, from the user's perspective, we
don't care whether the element has been removed from the DOM or has been
hidden, so we can just test that the visible selector can't be found.
Besides, using `visible: false` means the test will also pass if the
element is present and visible. However, we want the test to fail if the
element is visible. That's why a couple of JavaScript-dependant tests
were passing even when JavaScript was disabled.
These tests were supposed to check the link to vote is hidden when users
don't have permission to vote. However, they aren't testing that, since
the `visible: false` option also matches visible elements. The links are
actually considered visible since they're displayed by the browser;
there's just another element on top of them.
Using `obscured: true` instead of `visible: false` solves the issue.
However, while the `obscured` option is true when the element is hidden
by another element, it's also true when the element is not currently
visible in the browser window, so in some cases we need to scroll so the
condition is effective.
