By using real XML responses developers will be able to understand better
how the integration works (the data flow), and the correspondency between
`remote_census` settings and their place at a real XML response.
As `stubbed_responses` methods were removed from the model layer now the
stubbing part should be managed from the test environment code so also
added a new helper module `RemoteCensusSetup` that can be used anywhere
where we need to call the web service.
Co-Authored-By: Javi Martín <javim@elretirao.net>
Since the interface to select this date uses the classic multi-field
interface for day, month and year, we're transforming it into a date in
the Office::Residence initializer.
However, the factory to build an office residence does not assign the
paremeters in the initializer but using the `date_of_birth=` method, so
when doing so we need to use a date instead of a string.
By simplyfing the responses the configuration for specs can be simpler too.
We're also using more generic terms instead of the ones used in Madrid's
Census API.
Co-Authored-By: Javi Martín <javim@elretirao.net>
Otherwise the variants returned for document_type="1" and
document_number="" will be
`["0", "00", "000", "0000", "00000", "000000", "0000000", "00000000"]`
which seems to be useless.
Probably this case is not real for production environments where those
arguments will always be fullfilled but seems to be interesting for
testing environment where this method is being called when those
paremeters where empty.
Now we can use the checkbox label text directly as locator at spec,
also default web_sections are created before every spec by loading
`db/seeds.rb` file so we were duplicating "Proposals" WebSection.
We were allowing users to check/uncheck the "Visible to valuators"
checkbox even when the budget is finished and so the investments cannot
be edited. So users were still able to check/uncheck this attribute, but
the server was silently rejecting these changes.
We've considered removing the column in this case but decided to keep it
since users can already control which columns they'd like to display.
After upgrading to Turbolinks 5, redirects are followed on AJAX
requests, so we were accidentally redirecting the user after they mark
an investment as visible to valuators.
There was already a system spec failing due to this issue ("Admin budget
investments Mark as visible to valuators Keeps the valuation tags");
however, it only failed in some cases, so we're adding additional tests.
Ideally we would write a system test to check what happens when users
click on the checkbox. However, from the user's point of view, nothing
happens when they do so, and so testing it is hard. There's a usability
issue here (no feedback is provided to the user indicating the
investment is actually updated when they click on the checkbox and so
they might look for a button to send the form), which also results in a
feature which is difficult to test.
So we're writing two tests instead: one checking the controller does not
redirect when using a JSON request, and one checking the form submits a
JSON request.
I've chosen JSON over AJAX because usually requests to the update action
come from the edit form, and we might change the edit form to send an
AJAX request (and, in this case, Turbolinks would handle the redirect as
mentioned above).
Another option would be to send an AJAX request to a different action,
like it's done for the toggle selection action. I don't have a strong
preference for either option, so I'm leaving it the way it was. At some
point we should change the user interface, though; right now in the same
row there are two actions doing basically the same thing (toggling
valuator visibility and toggling selection) but with very different user
interfaces (one is a checkbox and the other one a link changing its
style depending on the state), resulting in a confusing interface.
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.
This rule was added in Rubocop 0.91.0. A similar rule named
LeakyConstantDeclaration was added in rubocop-rspec 1.34.0.
Note using the FILENAMES constant did not result in an offense using the
ConstantDefinitionInBlock rule but did result in an offense using the
LeakyConstantDeclaration rule. I've simplified the code to get rid of
the constant; not sure why we were adding a constant with `||=` in the
middle of a spec.
This rule was added in Rubocop 0.89.0. However, there are some false
positives when we don't use interpolation but simply concatenate in
order to avoid long lines. Even if there weren't false positives, there
are places where we concatenate to emphasize the point that we're adding
a certain character to a text.
We might reconsider this rule in the future, since we generally prefer
interpolation over concatenation.
Using `travel` we go to `Time.now + interval`. If the application's time
zone changes due to seasonal clock changes during that interval, we
might travel to a time which is not the time we intended to travel to.
Example:
On a system using the UTC time zone, it's 9AM on October 25 (Friday).
Since by default CONSUL uses the Madrid time zone, it means the
application's time is 11AM.
We use `travel` to advance three days. That means we go to 9AM UTC on
October 28 (Monday). The application's time will be 10AM due to the
seasonal clock change, so we haven't fully traveled three days in
application's time.
To reproduce locally, run:
```
TZ=UTC rspec spec/system/proposal_notifications_spec.rb:410
```
Using `travel_to` with `3.days.from_now`, which uses the application's
time zone and so it will travel to October 28 at 11AM, solves the
problem.
There were places where we had two links pointing to the same place; one
link would be the name/title of a record, and one link would be under
the "actions" column.
This is confusing, since users would probably expect these links to
point to different places (which is what happens in other tables in the
admin section) and might try to click one of them and then the other
one and be surprised when they found out both of them go to the same
page.
This way we can remove duplication and simplify the code in the view.
Note we're not using the "within" method in the tests to access a row,
because it doesn't seem to work in components tests when passing the
`text:` option.
This partial was going to get too complex since in some places we've got
different texts, different URLs or different confirmation messages.
While we should probably try to be more consistent and that would make
the partial work in most cases, there'll always be some exceptions, and
using a partial (with, perhaps, some helper methods) will become messy
really quickly.
While Rails provides a lot of functionality by default, there's one
missing piece which is present in frameworks like Django or Phoenix: the
so-called "view models", or "components".
It isn't easy to extract methods in a standard Rails view/partial, since
extracting them to a helper will make them available to all views, and
so two helper methods can't have the same name. It's also hard to
organize the code in modules, and due to that it's hard to figure out
where a certain helper method is supposed to be called from.
Furthermore, object-oriented techniques like inheritance can't be
applied, and so in CONSUL customizing views is harder that customizing
models.
Components fix all these issues, and work the way Ruby objects usually
do.
Components are also a pattern whose popularity has increased a lot in
the last few years, with JavaScript frameworks like React using them
heavily. While React's components aren't exactly the same as the
components we're going to use, the concept is really similar.
I've always liked the idea of components. However, there wasn't a stable
gem we could safely use. The most popular gem (cells) hasn't been
maintained for years, and we have to be very careful choosing which gems
CONSUL should depend on.
The view_component gem is maintained by GitHub, which is as a guarantee
of future maintenance as it can be (not counting the Rails core team),
and its usage started growing after RailsConf 2019. While that's
certainly not a huge amount of time, it's not that we're using an
experimental gem either.
There's currently a conflict between view_component and wicked_pdf.
We're adding a monkey-patch with the fix until it's merged in
wicked_pdf.
We were getting a deprecation message in Rails 5.2:
> The success? predicate is deprecated and will be removed in Rails 6.0.
> Please use successful? as provided by Rack::Response::Helpers.
All the code in the `bin/` and the `config/` folder has been generated
running `rake app:update`, except the `escape_javascript_fix` file,
which we've removed since the code there is already included in Rails
5.2.
