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
It looks like we get this warning if we check the dialog message. Using
`accept_confirm` the same way we do in the rest of the application
solves the problem.
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.
I haven't found an elegant way to remove them, but since they were the
only three variables left out of 383 we used to have, I can live with
this low percentage of inelegant solutions.
There's a very common pattern in our test, where the setup only has two
lines:
variable = create(:something)
unused_variable = create(:something_else, something: variable)
In this case, since there's a blank line below these ones and then we'll
get to the body of the test, and the second variable is going to be
created based on the first variable, we can remove the useless
assignment and the readability is still OK.
Another option we almost unanimously discarded was:
variable = create(:something)
_unused_variable = create(:something_else, something: variable)
We don't use it anywhere else, either.
One more option we considered but found a bit too much for simple tests:
variable = create(:something) do |something|
create(:something_else, something: variable)
end
Then of course we could move the setup to `let` and `before` blocks, but
the tests could get over-structured really quickly.
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.
This way we write the tests from the user's point of view: users can see
(for example) a proposal with the title "Make everything awesome", but
they don't see a proposal with a certain ID.
There are probably dozens, if not hundreds, of places where we could
write tests this way. However, it's very hard to filter which ones are
safe to edit, since not many of them have an HTML class we can use in
the tests, and adding a class might generate conflicts with CSS styles.
So, for now, I'm only changing the ones allowing us to cleanly remove
useless assignements while maintaining the code vertically aligned.
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.
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.
These feature tests were taking too long, we can't run them for every
single model.
I'm taking the approach of using one different model for each test, but
in theory only using a few models covering every possible scenario
would be enough.
In JavaScript, when there isn't a `break` or `return` statement inside a
`switch` case, the next case will be executed as well.
That wasn't a problem here because CoffeeScript automatically inserts a
`return` statement in this specific situation. However, since we don't
want to return the result of the `hide()` operation, it might be easy to
accidentally remove the `return` statement, causing the code to break.
I've added a test for the scenario where neither `break` nor `return`
statements are present, so we don't run into this error.
This number was not the important one; the important one is the one
given by the recounts.
Note we're also removing the votes by date, since they're also system
votes.
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.
The `type: :feature` is automatically detected by RSpec because these
tests are inside the `spec/features` folder. Using `feature` re-adds a
`type: :feature` to these files, which will result in a conflict when we
upgrade to Rails 5.1's system tests.
Because of this change, we also need to change `background` to `before`
or else these tests will fail.
The line:
create(:poll_voter, booth_assignment: booth_assignment_final_recounted)
Creates a new poll for the poll voter. Not only it wastes time by
creating new database records, but it doesn't make sense to have a poll
voter for a poll which isn't the same as its booth assignment's poll.
