When skipping verification, we cannot apply the validation rule saying
the document number and document type must be unique, because they'll be
`nil` in many cases. So we were skipping the rule, but that makes it
possible for the same user to vote several times (for instance, once in
a booth and once via web).
So we're changing the scope of the uniqueness rule: instead of being
unique per document number, voters are unique per user. The reason we
made them unique per document number was that back in commit 900563e3
(when we added the rule), we hadn't added the relation between users and
poll voters yet.
Up until now, we were assuming the voter was valid, but were not raising
an exception if it wasn't. And in the user interface everything seemed
to be working properly.
We were having this issue when skipping verification, when there could
be voters without a document number, which would be considered invalid.
Raising an exception when failing to save the voter and making sure the
answer and the voter are saved inside a transaction solves the problem.
Unfortunately this feature wasn't properly reviewed and tested, and it
had many bugs, some of them critical and hard to fix, like validations
being skipped in concurrent requests.
So we're removing it before releasing version 1.1. We might add it back
in the future if we manage to solve the critical issues.
This commit reverts commit 836f9ba7.
We were very inconsistent regarding these rules.
Personally I prefer no empty lines around blocks, clases, etc... as
recommended by the Ruby style guide [1], and they're the default values
in rubocop, so those are the settings I'm applying.
The exception is the `private` access modifier, since we were leaving
empty lines around it most of the time. That's the default rubocop rule
as well. Personally I don't have a strong preference about this one.
[1] https://rubystyle.guide/#empty-lines-around-bodies
Having exceptions is better than having silent bugs.
There are a few methods I've kept the same way they were.
The `RelatedContentScore#score_with_opposite` method is a bit peculiar:
it creates scores for both itself and the opposite related content,
which means the opposite related content will try to create the same
scores as well.
We've already got a test to check `Budget::Ballot#add_investment` when
creating a line fails ("Edge case voting a non-elegible investment").
Finally, the method `User#send_oauth_confirmation_instructions` doesn't
update the record when the email address isn't already present, leading
to the test "Try to register with the email of an already existing user,
when an unconfirmed email was provided by oauth" fo fail if we raise an
exception for an invalid user. That's because updating a user's email
doesn't update the database automatically, but instead a confirmation
email is sent.
There are also a few false positives for classes which don't have bang
methods (like the GraphQL classes) or destroying attachments.
For these reasons, I'm adding the rule with a "Refactor" severity,
meaning it's a rule we can break if necessary.
We use this method in two different scenarios. In an AJAX request, we
don't want to return every booth if the search is blank. However, in a
normal HTTP GET request, we want to return every record when the search
is empty, as we do everywhere else.
It's possible the behaviour of the AJAX call is unusual, since it
searches all booths, and not just the ones assigned to a poll. If we
changed this behaviour, we could simplify the code and remove the
`quick_search` method.
These variables can be considered a block, and so removing them doesn't
make the test much harder to undestand.
Sometimes these variables formed the setup, sometimes they formed an
isolated part of the setup, and sometimes they were the part of the test
that made the test different from other tests.
In the scenario where we want to test scopes and use `match_array`, we
usually declare variables we never use, which raises a warning in the
Ruby interpreter (since the main cause for an unused variable is a
typo).
So I've decided to just split the tests into cases where every record is
returned and cases were no records are returned, just like we do in
other places.
There are several other options we've considered:
1. Don't declare unused variables, but declare the ones we use
2. Prefix unused variables with un underscore
3. Declare just one variable being an array containing all elements, and
access the elements using Array#[]
4. Don't declare any variables, and compare results against attributes
such as titles
None of these options was met with enthusiasm.
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.
