In general, slow system tests requiring no interaction from the user are
good candidates to be moved to component tests because component tests
are much faster.
In this case, the system tests were also updating the database after
starting the browser, which might cause concurrency issues. We could
split the test and have one system test per phase, but IMHO there's no
need.
We're still having a couple of system tests for the happy path, in order
to make sure users actually see the list of investments.
Note we don't cast negative votes when users remove their support. That
way we provide compatibility for institutions who have implemented real
negative votes (in case there are / will be any), and we also keep the
database meaningful: it's not that users downvoted something; they
simply removed their upvote.
Co-Authored-By: Javi Martín <javim@elretirao.net>
Co-Authored-By: Julian Nicolas Herrero <microweb10@gmail.com>
Note one of the tests dealing with random results is a bit flaky; since
it's a permutation selecting 7 objects out of 12, it will fail about
once every 4 million times. We think this is acceptable.
Co-Authored-By: Julian Nicolas Herrero <microweb10@gmail.com>
This way we avoid modifying the database in the middle of a system test
(after we've started the browser), which can lead to database
inconsistencies.
In the case of the reclassification specs we're simply removing part of
the test because that part is already tested by other specs.
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.
Content like lowercase letters with `text-transform: uppercase` or
spaces after elements with `display: block` or "You're on page:" are not
seen that way by users with a browser supporting CSS.
So we're testing what most users actually experience.
The method `formatted_heading_price` depends on the current locale. When
we make a request to `visit budgets_path locale: :es`, the request
modifies `I18n.locale` as well.
However, if we use JavaScript tests, the process running the test is
different than the process handling the request, and so the change in
`I18n.locale` does not affect the test.
Checking against the actual value we expect makes the test work with and
without JavaScript.
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.
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.
Using the name instead of using the name and the price is IMHO more
consistent with the rest of the application, particularly for screen
reader users. Writing texts clicking those links is also easier.
I think the main reason why we used the price as part of the link was so
the clickable area was bigger. We can accomplish the same result with
CSS.
Now it's easier to change the investments filter. Previously we had to
go back to the budget index page, change the filter there, and then
select one heading.
Now the links to change the current filter in the budget index page
aren't needed anymore.
There were some issues using `.budget.expanded`, like a link having that
class which would force us to a `:not(.button)` selector or similar,
making the CSS more complex.
Previously the draft mode was a phase of the PB, but that had some
limitations.
Now the phase drafting disappears and therefore the PB can have the
status published or not published (in draft mode).
That will give more flexibility in order to navigate through the
different phases and see how it looks for administrators before
publishing the PB and everybody can see.
By default, the PB is always created in draft mode, so it gives you
the flexibility to adjust and modify anything before publishing it.
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.
