When voting investment projects, the sidebar was rendered without the
`@heading_content_blocks` being set. That resulted in a 500 error when
the heading had content blocks.
By extracting the logic to a component, we make sure the heading content
blocks are properly set every time this code is rendered, no matter
which controller is rendering the view.
Defining a behavior on hover means making it different for people using
a keyboard or a touchscreen (most of the population, nowadays).
In this case, we had an accessibility issue where the message wouldn't
disappear once it appeared. That meant that, after tabbing through all
the links and buttons in, for instance, the debates index, the page
would be filled with "participation not allowed" messages, and in order
to see the information about how many people have voted, reloading the
page was required.
For touchscreen users the behavior was similar to what we get on hover,
although we've found some inconsistencies when trying to support several
elements on the same page.
We think in proposals it makes sense to hide the "support" button when
users click on it, and the same applies to the buttonsto support and
vote investment projects. However, we aren't hiding the buttons to
agree/disagree with a debate in order to keep the information about the
current number of people agreeing and disagreeing visible.
Note we're removing some support spec methods because after these
changes the duplication isn't as obvious as it was in the past.
As mentioned in commits 5311daadf and bb958daf0, using links combined
with JavaScript to generate POST requests to the server has a few
issues.
We're also improving the keyboard access. Previously, the links were
focusable and clickable with the keyboard. Now we're disabling the
buttons when voting isn't allowed.
Since these elements can no longer be focused, we're adding an element
with `tabindex="0"` so the "participation not allowed" message is shown,
like we do in most places.
Note we're slightly changing one test because now when hovering over the
button on Chrome, the "participation not allowed" text isn't shown; it's
only shown when hovering on the parts of the `div.ballot` element
outside the button. Since we're already rewriting the behavior of the
"participation not allowed" text in a different pull request, we aren't
going to fix this behavior.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
