Assigning a variable to each budget we declare results in useless
assignments. We could just delete the three useless assignments and
leave the fourth one, but I find the code easier to read if we use the
name of the budgets to differenciate between them. This way we also keep
the code vertically aligned.
Unless we're using the booth assignment for something else in the test,
when creating a voter from booth, specifying the poll and the booth is
enough to create a booth assignment.
We were only using it in a few places.
I've left the current `final: true` statement in a few places where
using a trait would break vertical alignment, just in case.
Note we usually cannot make it simple because officer assignments are
usually assigned to both a poll and a booth, and on a certain date.
However, in the few cases where the booth nor the date don't matter, we
can make the code a bit easier to read.
While in theory we wouldn't need to use the `transient` nor the
`after(:create)` because there's already a `has_many :through`
association with followers, Factory Bot / ActiveRecord don't
automatically associate the followable, resulting in an invalid record
exception.
When we already have tests checking which records are included, in the
tests testing records are not included we can just generate records
which will not be included and test against an empty array.
We were already using this approach in some tests. This way we also
avoid useless assignments.
We're using `eq` and `match_array` in most places, but there were a few
places where we were still checking each element is included in the
array. This is a bit dangerous, because the array could have duplicate
elements, and we wouldn't detect them with `include`.
The test or the draft phase legislation filter was using an entirely
different set of records, but was still creating the records used in the
open and past filter as well.
This made it hard to test the filter, since it returned records from
both sets.
Grouping the past and open filters together guarantees their records
won't be created in the phase draft test, and so we can test the exact
contents of the array.
We were using `to_sentence` to check the order, while it's easier to
just check the exact contents of the array.
Furthermore, using `to_sentence` checked the order of the array, so it
was a potentially flaky spec since the method doesn't specify an order
and PostgreSQL doesn't guarantee the order of the records.
The group is automatically assigned when we assign the heading. The
budget isn't needed either, except for a special case related to the
reason to be rejected.
These tests are only checking which proposals are not included in the
recommendations, so we don't need to sort the included ones, just like
we don't use the cached votes up attribute in the tests preceeding these
ones.
Joining two scopes with `+` does not remove duplicate records. Luckily
now that we've upgraded to Rails 5, we can join scopes using `.or`.
The test was testing for the presence of elements, bud didn't test for
duplicate records. Testing the exact contents of the array revealed this
behaviour.
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.
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.
So now we test in depth at the model level, and can be a bit more
relaxed about integration tests for translations.
Note we're defining some extra factories to make sure all translatable
attributes with presence validation rules are mandatory. This way we can
simplify the way we obtain required fields, using `required_attribute?`.
Otherwise, fields having an `unless` condition in their presence
validation rules would count as mandatory even when they're not.
