IMHO opening new windows is a usability issue which has been known for
twenty years since it takes control away from the user and breaks the
"back button", but for now we're keeping the same behavior as we already
had, while slightly increasing the complexity of the tests (which is a
good indicator of a usability issue).
Before clicking the "Edit phase" link, there's already a "Name" field
present in the page (the name of the budget).
With the rack driver, there's no problem since the `fill_in` action
waits until the page is loaded.
However, the test will be a flaky spec if we use a driver supporting
JavaScript, since clicking the "Edit phase" link will cause an AJAX
request and the `fill_in` action might be executed before the AJAX
request is finished.
Using `have_selector` makes the test more robust since it matches all
the following HTML:
* <div data-track-event-category=verification>
* <div data-track-event-category='verification'>
* <div data-track-event-category="verification">
Our former expectation only matched the first one.
Using separate tests to check every link on the page made the tests
slower. We were also adding a useless initial request on tests which
started by visiting a different URL.
This useless initial request meant in some tests the browser was started
before using factories to create data. Accessing the database in the
test after the browser starts might cause concurrency issues in
JavaScript tests.
The test was creating a new "upload.images" setting instead of using
"uploads.images". It passed because it wasn't using JavaScript but was
configuring the wrong setting.
IMHO testing the navigation once is enough. In the rest of the tests we
can access the page directly and make the tests faster by reducing the
number of requests.
Testing the validation on the server side doesn't work with chromedriver
because HTML valdations result in the browser not even submitting the
form, so we're adding a `:no_js` tag to indicate we deliberately choose
to use the Rack driver.
The following test checking client side validation passes on my machine
but fails on Github Actions:
```
scenario "Validates price formats on the client side", :js do
investment.update!(visible_to_valuators: true)
visit edit_valuation_budget_budget_investment_path(budget, investment)
fill_in "Price (€)", with: "12345,98"
click_button "Save changes"
validation_message = find_field("Price (€)").native.attribute("validationMessage")
expect(validation_message).to be_present
end
```
There seems to be a bug in the dashboard when calculating
`accumulat_supports` because in some cases `vote_weight` is `nil`.
Besides, these tests check the database after the browser has started,
instead of checking things from a user's point of view.
Since both the tests and the code are wrong, and I'm not familiar enough
with the code in the dashboard section, for now I'm leaving things as
they were.
The user experience with JavaScript enabled is actually very bad;
there's a usability issue here because it's impossible to change an
answer once a "radio button" is selected, which goes against the
standard practice on basically any HTML form.
Issue 4123 already mentions this problem. Until we fix it, we're
disabling JavaScript in these tests.
These fields are hidden for users with a browser supporting CSS and is
only there to fool bots, so we're testing the case of an attack by bots
using browsers with no CSS support.
The filter "Mark as viewed" doesn't work properly, so here's a case
where the test would fail with JavaScript not because the test is wrong,
but due to a bug.
For now we're keeping the test as it was, but eventually we'll have to
fix the bug.
ChromeDriver only supports characters in the BMP (Basic Multilingual
Plane). One test fails with ChromeDriver because it was entering emojis.
I'm using kanji characters instead, although I must admit I'm not sure
why such an unusual login was used in the first place.
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.
We're improving the readability of the ones we're about to modify.
Using human texts makes tests easier to read and guarantees we're
testing from the user's point of view. For instance, if we write
`fill_in banner_target_url`, the test will pass even if the field has no
label associated to it. However, `fill_in "Link"` makes sure there's a
field with an associated label.
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.
Using `have_current_path`, Capybara waits until the condition is true,
while using `include` the expectation is evaluated immediately and so
tests might fail when using a driver supporting JavaScript.
Besides, using `have_current_path` the error message is more readable
when the test fails.
When using tests with a driver supporting JavaScript, there might be
concurrency issues if both the process running the test and the process
running the browser access the database once the browser has been
started.
On JavaScript tests, Rails URL methods don't include the port when
invoked from a test, but they do when invoked from the browser. This was
causing some tests to fail with Selenium.
Checking the `style` attribute fails in JavaScript tests because the
browser converts colors to the `rgb()` format.
So we're testing the generated HTML in a component test while
simplifying the system test.
It isn't very intuitive that this link points to the stats page, but
since it's the only page linking to it and there's no link pointing to
it in the admin navigation, I guess it's better than offering no clue at
all of the current whereabouts.
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.
So it's similar to the other custom page 404 tests.
Note we're explicitely marking the page as a draft so it's more obvious
what's going on in the test.
We were testing what happens when users disable features in the admin
panel, so it makes sense to test what happens from the user's point of
view when trying to access a disabled feature: they see a page with the
test "Internal server error".
Whether we should responde with 500 Internal server error page or a 404
Not Found is up to debate; personally I find the latter more
appropriate.
Code based on the article "Changing Rails consider_all_requests_local in
RSpec fails" [1].
[1] http://atodorov.org/blog/2016/04/27/changing-rails-consider_all_requests_local-in-rspec-fails/
Tests are easier to read now. Besides, since we changed the inputs in
the admin section so they don't use jQuery but an HTML date field,
formatting with %d/%m/%Y might not work depending on the browser's
locale.
Some tests were failing depending on the window resolution due to the
datepicker making it impossible to click the "Filter" button. They were
also failing if using `clear: :backspace` to fill in those fields.
So we're focusing on a different field in order to hide the datepicker
and click the "Filter" button.
The line `fill_in "advanced_search_date_max", with: "wrong date"`
doesn't work because the jQuery UI datepicker prevents users from
entering that value.
Using `<a>` tags with no `href` means these elements cannot be activated
by keyboard users, so we're replacing them with buttons.
In the future we probably want to add more consistency so all toggle
buttons use the same code. We might also add styles depending on the
`aria-expanded` property.
