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.
We barely use this trait. In the votation type spec we're probably using
it wrong, and in the answer spec we assume one of the answers is going
to be "Yes".
The name `yes_no` is more expressive, since it makes it clear what the
answers are.
These specs were added before we disabled featured proposals by default.
After that, they were passing, but they were not testing the scenario
they were supposed to test.
Before we disabled featured proposals by default, there were many tests
creating them because they were needed in order to create non-featured
proposals.
But now these tests don't need to create featured proposals anymore.
We had a case where we created 5 extra records in pagination and checked
2 records were present, because the other 3 were automatically
considered featured proposals.
Explicitely creating featured proposals let us create 2 extra records
and check 2 records are present, which is far more intuitive.
The "name" attribute is automatically generated by the budget heading
factory. And the "price" attribute is out of context and not needed
since this test doesn't create investments.
One test was testing regular users can't access results, and another one
was testing neither regular users nor managers can. So the second test
can just test the admin scenario, and we're still covering everything.
The factory creating assignments automatically assigns a poll to it, so
we don't use the poll for anything else, there's no need to explicitely
create it.
This data is obsolete since commit 9d1ca3bf.
Note we should have probably moved the test to the model, since now the
`to_csv` method isn't tested anywhwere, and we should probably add a
test in the future. The code now uses the new DownloadSetting model,
though, making it hard to test.
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.
This is a mistake I made in commit f2ef27d3. Back then I thought we
needed to keep Globalize.locale and I18n.locale in sync, but the truth
is it automatically happens when setting Globalize.locale to nil.
So now we can use I18n.with_locale (at least in the tests) and forget
about Globalize, which will make it easier to switch to Mobility in the
future.
Now factories define default headings for investments, so there's no
need to create a group and a heading to create an investment.
Likewise, in order to create a heading it isn't necessary to specify a
group anymore; specifying the budget is enough.
It's possible that there are more similar cases we haven't simplified
yet; I'm only addressing the obvious ones.
These settings are enabled by default.
It could be argued explicitely enabling the features makes tests more
consistent, because they'll work if we change the default setting. It
could also be argued that it makes tests more expressive because it
makes the reader realize certain things will only work if a setting is
enabled.
However, we were only doing so in a few tests. The truth is, thousands
of our tests depend on certain features being enabled. So IMHO we should
be consistent and either set them on every test, or not at all. I'm
choosing the latter option for simplicity.
We already configure `I18n.locale` and we reset Globalize's fallbacks
before every test.
On the other hand, RSpec automatically resets anything which is stub
with `allow`, so there's no need to use `and_call_original` in an
`after` block.
Settings are stored in the database, and so any changes to the settings
done during the tests are automatically rolled back between one test and
the next one.
There were also a few places where we weren't using an `after` block but
changing the setting at the end of the test.
When creating a budget investment with an unverified manager (for
example, a manager who isn't part of the local census), there's a
request to `Budgets::InvestmentsController#suggest`. Since the manager
isn't verified, suggestions can't be obtained.
There are serveral ways to fix this problem:
* Add a `suggest` action to Management::Budgets::InvestmentsController,
doing the same thing the main `suggest` action does.
* Give unverified users permission to access investment suggestions
* Give managers permission to access investment suggestions
I've chosen the last one because I thought it was simple and only
changed existing behaviour for managers, but any other solution would be
as valid. I haven't added the `phase: "accepting"` condition to keep it
simple, since a read-only action like this one in the management portal
isn't gonna create security risks.
