When `valuator_group` was `nil`, `[valuator_group&.investment_ids]` is
evaluated to `nil`, and so we were adding an extra element to the array.
We could add a `compact` call to the resulting array, but I find it
easier to convert `nil` to an array using `to_a`.
We were creating the investments with more ballot counts first in every
test, so the tests would pass if we ordered the investments by creation
date instead of ordering them by the number of ballot lines.
While there are other variables in these tests, they're not part of the
setup of the test, and so these ones can be removed while keeping the
code easy to read.
While it could be argued we're hiding the real way we've defined
associations in our models, the tests are so much easier to read when we
don't have so many lines just creating data.
Furthermore, developers who care about vertically aligning the code will
be glad to see some variables disrupting this alignment are now gone.
We barely use this trait. In the votation type spec we're probably using
it wrong, and in the answer spec we assume one of the answers is going
to be "Yes".
The name `yes_no` is more expressive, since it makes it clear what the
answers are.
These specs were added before we disabled featured proposals by default.
After that, they were passing, but they were not testing the scenario
they were supposed to test.
Before we disabled featured proposals by default, there were many tests
creating them because they were needed in order to create non-featured
proposals.
But now these tests don't need to create featured proposals anymore.
We had a case where we created 5 extra records in pagination and checked
2 records were present, because the other 3 were automatically
considered featured proposals.
Explicitely creating featured proposals let us create 2 extra records
and check 2 records are present, which is far more intuitive.
The "name" attribute is automatically generated by the budget heading
factory. And the "price" attribute is out of context and not needed
since this test doesn't create investments.
One test was testing regular users can't access results, and another one
was testing neither regular users nor managers can. So the second test
can just test the admin scenario, and we're still covering everything.
The factory creating assignments automatically assigns a poll to it, so
we don't use the poll for anything else, there's no need to explicitely
create it.
This data is obsolete since commit 9d1ca3bf.
Note we should have probably moved the test to the model, since now the
`to_csv` method isn't tested anywhwere, and we should probably add a
test in the future. The code now uses the new DownloadSetting model,
though, making it hard to test.
These feature tests were taking too long, we can't run them for every
single model.
I'm taking the approach of using one different model for each test, but
in theory only using a few models covering every possible scenario
would be enough.
