We removed the link to this page in commit 83e8d6035 because poll
questions don't really make sense without a poll.
However, this page also contained information about successful
proposals, which might be interesting so administrators don't have to
navigate to the public area in order to find and create questions based
on successful proposals.
So we're keeping the part about successful proposals and linking it from
the proposals part of the admin area.
Note we're using translation keys like `successful_proposals_tab`, which
don't make sense anymore, for the successful proposals. We're doing so
because we've already got translations for these keys and, if we renamed
them, we'd lose the existing translations and our translators would have
to add them again.
Also note we're changing one poll question test a little bit so we
create the question from a successful proposal using the new page. There
are other tests checking how to create a question from the
admin/proposals#show action and other tests checking what happens when
accessing a successful proposal in the admin section, so we don't lose
any test coverage by changing an existing test instead of adding a new
one.
Finally, note that we've removing the `search` method in poll question
because we no longer use it. This currently makes the
`author_visible_name` database column useless; we aren't removing it
right now because we don't want to risk a possible data loss in a patch
release (we're about to release version 2.3.1), but we might remove it
in the future.
This rule was added in rubocop-capybara 2.19.0. We were following it
about 85% of the time.
Now we won't have to check both have_css and have_selector when
searching the code.
Adding, modifiying, and/or deleting questions for an already started
poll is far away from being democratic and can lead to unwanted side
effects like missing votes in the results or stats.
So, from now on, only modifiying questions will be possible only if
the poll has not started yet.
In some cases (e.g. after editing or creating a resource
with errors) the default back_link did not redirect to the
expected page.
Now we force the back_links to the index pages, so we
always get the desired redirect.
After removing a question from a poll it makes more sense to redirect to
your own poll show page in order to manage their questions.
Currently it is redirecting to the questions index page where all the
questions from all the polls are displayed and takes you completely out
of the context of the poll you are in.
In the future we will remove this index question page.
This way the tests won't appear as "pending" when running the test
suite, and so we get rid of a lot of noise in the test results. There
doesn't seem to be a way to call `skip` without the test being marked as
"pending".
Note that in the globalizable tests we need to build a factory before
deciding whether an atribute is required or not (particularly for the
milestone factory, since milestone attributes are required depending on
the presence of other attributes). This isn't possible before we're
inside the test, so we can't add an `if:` condition to the test. So
we're adding the condition inside the test instead. A minor
inconvenience of this method is the test still runs even when the
condition is `false`.
CONSUL doesn't implement blank votes via web; the comment was based on
the code used in Madrid, which was actually very complex.
And the concept of "all city" was also specific to Madrid. Poll
questions aren't associated to a geozone, so the geozone will depend on
the poll they're associated to.
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.
Using `have_selector` Capybara might detect `<a>` tags which are not
links because they don't have an `href` attribute. Besides, with
`have_selector` Capybara only detects visible text, which means it won't
detect links which are icons with tooltips.
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-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.
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.
