In the form of creating a new investment was hiding the name of the
group if it had only one heading, but could be confusing to users if
there are, for example, five different groups of one heading.
The solution:
- If the budget has one group and one heading, the heading selector is
hidden.
- If the budget has one group and more than one heading, the group name
is hidden.
- If the budget has more than one group, the group name appears
regardless of the number of headings.
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
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.
In the scenario where we want to test scopes and use `match_array`, we
usually declare variables we never use, which raises a warning in the
Ruby interpreter (since the main cause for an unused variable is a
typo).
So I've decided to just split the tests into cases where every record is
returned and cases were no records are returned, just like we do in
other places.
There are several other options we've considered:
1. Don't declare unused variables, but declare the ones we use
2. Prefix unused variables with un underscore
3. Declare just one variable being an array containing all elements, and
access the elements using Array#[]
4. Don't declare any variables, and compare results against attributes
such as titles
None of these options was met with enthusiasm.
So now we test in depth at the model level, and can be a bit more
relaxed about integration tests for translations.
Note we're defining some extra factories to make sure all translatable
attributes with presence validation rules are mandatory. This way we can
simplify the way we obtain required fields, using `required_attribute?`.
Otherwise, fields having an `unless` condition in their presence
validation rules would count as mandatory even when they're not.
Joining the translations table caused duplicate records to appear.
Ordering with SQL is simply too hard because we need to consider
fallback locales.
Thanks Senén for providing most of the tests in the poll spec.
Slugs should only be updated on certain conditions, we need a trait that
meets that conditions and the name of the trait passed as a mandatory &
named argument on the sluggable concern
Cambios para hacer commit:
modificado: app/controllers/admin/budget_headings_controller.rb
modificado: app/models/budget/heading.rb
nuevo archivo: app/views/admin/budget_headings/_errors.html.erb
nuevo archivo: app/views/admin/budget_headings/edit.js.erb
nuevo archivo: app/views/admin/budget_headings/update.js.erb
modificado: app/views/admin/budgets/_group.html.erb
nuevo archivo: app/views/admin/budgets/_heading.html.erb
nuevo archivo: app/views/admin/budgets/_heading_form.html.erb
modificado: config/locales/en/activerecord.yml
modificado: config/locales/es/activerecord.yml
modificado: spec/features/admin/budgets_spec.rb
modificado: spec/models/budget/heading_spec.rb
Why:
* Slug must be unique among:
1. Budget slug: among other budgets
2. Group slug: among other groups from its budget
3. Heading slug: among other headings from all the groups from its budget
How:
* Adding checks for all possible scenarios on each model specs
Why:
* Those classes have a slug attribute that needs to be filled
How:
* Just adding the shared example to Budget model spec, and creating the model spec file for Heading and Group to include it as well
