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.
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`.
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.
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.
This is a mistake I made in commit f2ef27d3. Back then I thought we
needed to keep Globalize.locale and I18n.locale in sync, but the truth
is it automatically happens when setting Globalize.locale to nil.
So now we can use I18n.with_locale (at least in the tests) and forget
about Globalize, which will make it easier to switch to Mobility in the
future.
System count isn't a relevant number because the important one is the
number of votes counted by poll officers. We're still maintaining it for
a month in case poll officers would like to review the results.
Avoid to raise an exception `Module::DelegationError' when trying to
show the name and/or email of a poll officer whose user account has
been deleted.
We'll show a message "User deleted" and "Email deleted" instead.
Joining the translations table caused duplicate records to appear.
Ordering with SQL is simply too hard because we need to consider
fallback locales.
Thanks Senén for providing most of the tests in the poll spec.
In Rails 5.1, calling `travel_to` inside another `travel_to` block will
result in a RuntimeError:
> Calling `travel_to` with a block, when we have previously already made
> a call to `travel_to`, can lead to confusing time stubbing.
This table will store which reports (stats, results, ...) will be shown
for a certain process (polls, budgets, ...).
Note Rails fails to save a poll and its report when both are new records
if we add a `validate :process, presence: true` rule. Since it caused a
lot of trouble when creating records for tests during factories rule
completely. Instead, I've created the `results_enabled=` and
`stats_enabled=` methods, so tests are easier to set up, while also
automatically creating a report if it doesn't already exist. This also
decouples form structure and database implemenation.
Originally I named this table `enabled_reports` and instead of having
`stats` and `results` columns, it had an `enabled` column and a `kind`
column, which would be set to "stats" or "results". However, although
that table would allow us to add arbitrary reports easily, I found the
way we had to handle the `has_many` relationship was a bit too complex.
Due to technical issues, sometimes users voted in booths and their vote
couldn't be added to the database. So we're including them in the users
with no demographic data.
We need a way to manually expire the cache for a budget or poll without
expiring the cache of every budget or poll.
Using the `updated_at` column would be dangerous because most of the
times we update a budget or a poll, we don't need to regenerate their
stats.
We've considered adding a `stats_updated_at` column to each of these
tables. However, in that case we would also need to add a similar column
in the future to every process type whose stats we want to generate.
If users participated and were hidden after participating, we should
still count them in the participants stats.
In the tests, we set users' `hidden_at` attribute before they vote.
Although in real life they would vote first and then they would be
hidden, I've written the tests like this for the sake of simplicity.
It will make it far easier to call other methods on the stats object,
and we're already caching the methods.
We had to remove the view fragment caching because the stats object
isn't as easy to cache. The good thing about it is the view will
automatically be updated when we change logic regarding which stats to
show, and the methods taking long to execute are cached in the model.
For now we think showing them would be showing too much data and it
would be a bit confusing.
I've been tempted to just remove the view and keep the methods in the
model in case they're used by other institutions using CONSUL. However,
it's probably better to wait until we're asked to re-implement them, and
in the meantime we don't maintain code nobody uses. The code wasn't that
great to start with (I know it because I wrote it).
While we already had "one test to rule all stats", testing each method
individually makes reading, adding and changing tests easier.
Note we need to make all methods being tested public. We could also test
them using methods like `stats.generate[:total_valid_votes]` instead of
`stats.total_valid_votes`, but then the tests would be more difficult to
read.
