Using a checkbox wasn't very intuitive because checkboxes are
checked/unchecked when clicked on even if there's an error in the
request. Usually, when checkboxes appear on a form, they don't send any
information to the server unless we click a button to send the form.
So we're using a switch instead of a checkbox, like we did to
enable/disable phases in commit 46d8bc4f0.
Note that, since we've got two switches that match the default
`dom_id(record) .toggle-switch` selector, we need to find a way to
differentiate them. We're adding the `form_class` option for that.
Also note that we're now using a separate action and removing the
JavaScript in the `update` action which assumed that AJAX requests to
this action were always related to updating the `visible_to_valuators`
attribute.
We were performing 3 requests in order to refresh the page and check the
content was still there. We can use `refresh` instead.
We're also reusing the `investment1` variable in every test, instead of
redifining it in one of them.
This is consistent to what we usually do. Also, we're applying the same
criteria mentioned in commit 72704d776:
> We're also making these actions idempotent, so sending many requests
> to the same action will get the same result, which wasn't the case
> with the `toggle` action. Although it's a low probability case, the
> `toggle` action could result in [selecting an investment] when trying
> to [deselect] it if someone else has [deselected it] it between the
> time the page loaded and the time the admin clicked on the
> "[Selected]" button.
Just like it happened with proposals, the button to select/deselect an
investment wasn't very intuitive; for example, it wasn't obvious that
pressing a button saying "selected" would deselect the investment.
So we're using a switch control, like we do to enable/disable features
since commit fabe97e50.
Note that we're making the text of the switch smaller than in other
places because the text in the investments table it is also smaller
(we're using `font-size: inherit` for that purpose). That made the
button look weird because we were using rems instead of ems for the
width of the button, so we're adjusting that as well.
Also note we're changing the width of the switch to `6em` instead of
`6.25em` (which would be 100px if 1em is 16px). We're doing so because
we used 100 for the minimum width because it's a round number, so
now we're using another round number.
Since we were checking something that was already there, if the form
were submitted using an AJAX request (which is the default with Turbo,
although we don't use it yet), there would be a chance that the request
didn't finish before the test does, leading to potential failures in the
next test.
This way we're also checking that the "Filter" button actually does
something when selecting the "Selected" filter.
We don't need to replace the whole row, since the changes only affect
the button. Therefore, we don't need to depend on an `inserted` event to
decide which columns to render in that row.
We were checking it in the view, meaning that it was possible to toggle
the selection by sending a custom request even when the investment
wasn't feasible.
This way it'll be easier to change the link/button used to toggle the
selection.
Note that the conditions in the view seem to be different because we no
longer include the `selected?` condition when rendering the link/button.
However, an investment can only be selected if it's feasible and its
valuation is finished, so writing something like this would have been
redundant:
```ruby
can?(:toggle_selection, investment) &&
(selected? || investment.feasible? && investment.valuation_finished?)
```
The reason why the previous code was using the `selected?` condition was
to check whether to render the link/button to select or to deselect an
investment. We're now doing that in the Ruby part of the component.
Since we define the `data-field` element, we can style each element
individually with CSS.
I'm not sure whether these styles make sense, though. For instance, why
is "Supports" aligned to the center, since it's a number? For now, we're
leaving it as it was.
This code isn't used since commit c9f31b8e1.
Since we no longer depend on the content of the `#investments` element
being in a separate partial, we're also moving this element to the
partial itself and adding an HTML class to it, like we usually do.
We're also removing the code that loads all the investments in the
`toggle_selection` action, which wasn't needed since commit 3278b3572,
when we stopped rendering all the investments in this action.
This way we'll be able to simplify it a little bit.
Note that the original partial didn't include the whole row and only
the cells. Since, most of the time, we include the whole row in
partials, we're slightly modifying the component.
Since this button is replaced by a new element in an AJAX call, nothing
was focused after pressing it.
So we're reusing the code we used to enable/disable budget phases, which
already dealt with this issue.
This is consistent to what we usually do. Also, we're applying the same
criteria mentioned in commit 72704d776:
> We're also making these actions idempotent, so sending many requests
> to the same action will get the same result, which wasn't the case
> with the `toggle` action. Although it's a low probability case, the
> `toggle` action could result in [selecting a proposal] when trying to
> [deselect] it if someone else has [deselected it] it between the time
> the page loaded and the time the admin clicked on the "[Selected]"
> button.
The button to select/deselect a proposal wasn't very intuitive; for
example, it wasn't obvious that pressing a button saying "selected"
would deselect the proposal.
So we're using a switch control, like we do to enable/disable features
since commit fabe97e50.
In commit f638e5017 we introduced some methods to avoid race conditions
in tests that created debates, proposals or investments.
However, since we don't have a way to effectively make sure we use these
methods in new code, we forgot to do so when adding tests in commits
c483c6036 and 84b88c0ec.
So we're using them now.
There's a chance that this is what was causing multitenancy tests to
fail sometimes; if we don't wait for the request to get the suggestions
to finish, the application might still be dealing with this request when
we make another request to a different subdomain, or when the test has
finished and the tenant has already been deleted.
On my machine, the test "Creating content in one tenant doesn't affect
other tenants" failed about 5% of the time without these changes, and I
haven't been able to reproduce this failure after applying them. Having
said that, it's possible that this is a coincidence and that this test
will fail for a different reason in the future (like `login_as` not
working properly with subdomains).
