All the code in the `bin/` and the `config/` folders has been generated
running `rake app:update`. The only exception is the code in
`config/application.rb` where we've excluded the engines that Rails 6.0
has added, since we don't use them.
There are a few changes in Active Storage which aren't compatible with
the code we were using until now.
Since the method to assign an attachment in ActiveStorage has changed
and is incompatible with the hack we used to allow assigning `nil`
attachments, and since ActiveStorage now supports assigning `nil`
attachments, we're removing the mentioned hack. This makes the
HasAttachment module redundant, so we're removing it.
Another change in ActiveStorage is files are no longer saved before
saving the `ActiveStorage::Attachment` record. This means we need to
manually upload the file when using direct uploads. We also have to
change the width and height validations we used for images; however,
doing so results in very complex code, and we currently have to write
that code for both images and site customization images.
So, for now, we're just uploading the file before checking its
dimensions. Not ideal, though. We might use active_storage_validations
in the future to fix this issue (when they support a proc/lambda, as
mentioned in commit 600f5c35e).
We also need to update a couple of tests due to a small change in
response headers. Now the content disposition returns something like:
```
attachment; filename="budget_investments.csv"; filename*=UTF-8''budget_investments.csv
```
So we're updating regular expression we use to check the filename.
Finally, Rails 6.0.1 changed the way the host is set in integration
tests [1] and so both `Capybara.app_host` and `Capybara.default_host`
were ignored when generating URLs in the relationable examples. The only
way I've found to make it work is to explicitely assign the host to the
integration session. Rails 6.1 will change this setup again, so maybe
then we can remove this hack.
[1] https://github.com/rails/rails/pull/36283/commits/fe00711e9
We were testing the creation of newsletters and admin notifications for
each existing segment, which IMHO is a bit overkill, considering how
slow system tests are.
So far we don't have any reasons to believe creating newsletters and
admin notifications will only work for some user segments, so we're
testing a random one instead.
Running these tests on my machine is now about 15 seconds faster.
We're going to add geozones as user segments, so it's handy to have the
method in the UserSegments class.
We're also changing the `user_segment_emails` parameter name for
consistency and simplicity.
We're going to make it dynamic using the geozones. Besides, class
methods can be overwritten using custom models, while constants can't be
overwritten without getting a warning [1].
Makes the definition of segments with geozones a little cleaner. I
think it’s worth it, compared to the slight memory gain of using a
constant [2].
[1] warning: already initialized constant UserSegments::SEGMENTS
[2] https://stackoverflow.com/questions/15903835/class-method-vs-constant-in-ruby-rails#answer-15903970
Links acting like buttons have a few disadvantages.
First, screen readers will announce them as "links". Screen reader users
usually associate links with "things that get you somewhere" and buttons
with "things that perform an action". So when something like "Delete,
link" is announced, they'll probably think this is a link which will
take them to another page where they can delete a record.
Furthermore, the URL of the link for the "destroy" action might be the
same as the URL for the "show" action (only one is accessed with a
DELETE request and the other one with a GET request). That means screen
readers could announce the link like "Delete, visited link", which is
very confusing.
They also won't work when opening links in a new tab, since opening
links in a new tab always results in a GET request to the URL the link
points to.
Finally, submit buttons work without JavaScript enabled, so they'll work
even if the JavaScript in the page hasn't loaded (for whatever reason).
For all these reasons (and probably many more), using a button to send
forms is IMHO superior to using links.
There's one disadvantage, though. Using `button_to` we create a <form>
tag, which means we'll generate invalid HTML if the table is inside
another form. If we run into this issue, we need to use `button_tag`
with a `form` attribute and then generate a form somewhere else inside
the HTML (with `content_for`).
Note we're using `button_to` with a block so it generates a <button>
tag. Using it in a different way the text would result in an <input />
tag, and input elements can't have pseudocontent added via CSS.
The following code could be a starting point to use the `button_tag`
with a `form` attribute. One advantage of this approach is screen
readers wouldn't announce "leaving form" while navigating through these
buttons. However, it doesn't work in Internet Explorer.
```
ERB:
<% content_for(:hidden_content, form_tag(path, form_options) {}) %>
<%= button_tag text, button_options %>
Ruby:
def form_id
path.gsub("/", "_")
end
def form_options
{ id: form_id, method: options[:method] }
end
def button_options
html_options.except(:method).merge(form: form_id)
end
Layout:
<%= content_for :hidden_content %> # Right before the `</body>`
```
It's strange to create records without assigning them to a variable and
then query the database to fetch the very same records. Assigning them
to a variable makes the tests easier to understand.
Besides, this way we avoid querying the database after the browser has
started.
JavaScript is used by about 98% of web users, so by testing without it
enabled, we're only testing that the application works for a very
reduced number of users.
We proceeded this way in the past because CONSUL started using Rails 4.2
and truncating the database between JavaScript tests with database
cleaner, which made these tests terribly slow.
When we upgraded to Rails 5.1 and introduced system tests, we started
using database transactions in JavaScript tests, making these tests much
faster. So now we can use JavaScript tests everywhere without critically
slowing down our test suite.
We were repeating the same code over and over (with a few variants) to
setup tests which require an administrator. We can use a tag and
simplify the code.
Rails automatically disables buttons when submitting a form. This works
fine most of the time: for AJAX requests, it enables them again after
the request is complete, and for non-AJAX requests, the button is
replaced by a new element when the new page loads.
However, there's an exception. When a request returns data so users can
download a fire, the request is not an AJAX one and the button is not
replaced. So users are left with a disabled button they can no longer
click.
So in this case, we aren't disabling the button after a user clicks it.
