This way we don't have to write `"spec/fixtures/files"` every time.
Note this method isn't included in factories. We could include it like
so:
```
FactoryBot::SyntaxRunner.class_eval do
include ActiveSupport::Testing::FileFixtures
self.file_fixture_path = RSpec.configuration.file_fixture_path
end
```
However, I'm not sure about the possible side effects, and since we only
use attachments in a few factories, there isn't much gain in applying
the monkey-patch.
This way we fix a bug we mentioned in commit 930bb753c which caused
links to documents to be broken when editing their title because the
title was used to generate the URL of the document.
Note we're still using Paperclip to render cached attachments because
this is the only case where we store files with just Paperclip and not
Active Storage.
With Active Storage, we render attachments just like any other resource,
using `polymorphic_path`. Paperclip included the `url` method in the
model; since the model doesn't have access to the request parameters
(like the host), this was inconvenient because it wasn't possible to
generate absolute URLs with Paperclip.
In order to simplify the code and make it similar to the way we used
Paperclip, we're adding a `variant` method accepting the name of a
variant and returning the variant.
These tests were checking the URLs of documents and images pointed to
the URL generated by the `attachment.url` method. In order to do so, we
were running database queries after starting the process running the
browser, which is sometimes causing database inconsistencies when
running the tests.
So I'm simply removing the URL check. The tests are slightly less useful
now, but it isn't like they were 100% right in the first place. After
all, if the `attachment.url` method wasn't working properly, the tests
were still passing.
Links acting like buttons have a few disadvantages.
First, screen readers will announce them as "links". Screen reader users
usually associate links with "things that get you somewhere" and buttons
with "things that perform an action". So when something like "Delete,
link" is announced, they'll probably think this is a link which will
take them to another page where they can delete a record.
Furthermore, the URL of the link for the "destroy" action might be the
same as the URL for the "show" action (only one is accessed with a
DELETE request and the other one with a GET request). That means screen
readers could announce the link like "Delete, visited link", which is
very confusing.
They also won't work when opening links in a new tab, since opening
links in a new tab always results in a GET request to the URL the link
points to.
Finally, submit buttons work without JavaScript enabled, so they'll work
even if the JavaScript in the page hasn't loaded (for whatever reason).
For all these reasons (and probably many more), using a button to send
forms is IMHO superior to using links.
There's one disadvantage, though. Using `button_to` we create a <form>
tag, which means we'll generate invalid HTML if the table is inside
another form. If we run into this issue, we need to use `button_tag`
with a `form` attribute and then generate a form somewhere else inside
the HTML (with `content_for`).
Note we're using `button_to` with a block so it generates a <button>
tag. Using it in a different way the text would result in an <input />
tag, and input elements can't have pseudocontent added via CSS.
The following code could be a starting point to use the `button_tag`
with a `form` attribute. One advantage of this approach is screen
readers wouldn't announce "leaving form" while navigating through these
buttons. However, it doesn't work in Internet Explorer.
```
ERB:
<% content_for(:hidden_content, form_tag(path, form_options) {}) %>
<%= button_tag text, button_options %>
Ruby:
def form_id
path.gsub("/", "_")
end
def form_options
{ id: form_id, method: options[:method] }
end
def button_options
html_options.except(:method).merge(form: form_id)
end
Layout:
<%= content_for :hidden_content %> # Right before the `</body>`
```
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.
We were repeating the same code over and over (with a few variants) to
setup tests which require an administrator. We can use a tag and
simplify the code.
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.
