We were creating records with a title we manually set, so to be
consistent with the rest of the code, in the test we check the title is
present using a string literal.
This way we can also remove useless assignments while keeping the code
vertically aligned.
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.
While this is potentially very dangerous because assigning the ID does
not increase the ID sequence, it's safe to do so in tests where we
assign the ID to every record created on a certain table.
Even so, I'd consider it a bad practice which must be used with care. In
this case I'm using it because we look for IDs in the response, and
most tests in this file use literals to compare the response.
This changes makes it possible to remove unused variables while keeping
the test readable.
Since we're obtaining titles and usernames in the response, it's easier
to compare them to titles and usernames we manually set.
Furthermore, this way we avoid many useless assignments.
Assigning a variable to each budget we declare results in useless
assignments. We could just delete the three useless assignments and
leave the fourth one, but I find the code easier to read if we use the
name of the budgets to differenciate between them. This way we also keep
the code vertically aligned.
Unless we're using the booth assignment for something else in the test,
when creating a voter from booth, specifying the poll and the booth is
enough to create a booth assignment.
We were only using it in a few places.
I've left the current `final: true` statement in a few places where
using a trait would break vertical alignment, just in case.
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 in theory we wouldn't need to use the `transient` nor the
`after(:create)` because there's already a `has_many :through`
association with followers, Factory Bot / ActiveRecord don't
automatically associate the followable, resulting in an invalid record
exception.
When we already have tests checking which records are included, in the
tests testing records are not included we can just generate records
which will not be included and test against an empty array.
We were already using this approach in some tests. This way we also
avoid useless assignments.
We're using `eq` and `match_array` in most places, but there were a few
places where we were still checking each element is included in the
array. This is a bit dangerous, because the array could have duplicate
elements, and we wouldn't detect them with `include`.
The test or the draft phase legislation filter was using an entirely
different set of records, but was still creating the records used in the
open and past filter as well.
This made it hard to test the filter, since it returned records from
both sets.
Grouping the past and open filters together guarantees their records
won't be created in the phase draft test, and so we can test the exact
contents of the array.
We were using `to_sentence` to check the order, while it's easier to
just check the exact contents of the array.
Furthermore, using `to_sentence` checked the order of the array, so it
was a potentially flaky spec since the method doesn't specify an order
and PostgreSQL doesn't guarantee the order of the records.
These factories were only used in one place and they even declared ID
attributes. Using the comment factory with the `commentable` attribute
does the same thing.
The instance variable was being evaluated to `nil`, and the budget was
automatically created by the `set_denormalized_ids` method in the budget
investment class.
This is one of the most strange behaviours in ruby: if a variable
doesn't exist, assigning to itself will return `nil`.
So a line like:
mdmkdfm = ooops if mdmkdfm.respond_to?(:uiqpior)
Surprisingly will not raise any errors: the nonexistent `mdmkdfm`
variable will be evaluated to `nil`, `mdmkdfm.respond_to?(:uiqpior)`
will evaluate to `nil.respond_to?(:uiqpior)`, which will return `false`,
and then the line will be evaluated as `mdmkdfm = ooops if false`, which
will return `nil`.
Maybe in the future Ruby will change this behaviour. We hope CONSUL is
now in better shape if that ever happens :).
The `create_proposal_notification` method won't create a new
notification when a proposal has no supporters, so in the test
`notification3` was actually the same as `notification2`, related to
`proposal2`.
The attribute made sense before we changed it in commit ba1a6b4c. Since
then, all milestones have the same date, so the attribute doesn't affect
the test at all.
The valuation comment doesn't show up in the comment show action because
it's not a child of the parent comment. With a regular comment, the test
passes as well.
However, if we make the valuation comment a child of the parent comment,
it shows up both in the index and show actions. That's because the
method `root_descendants` in the `CommentTree` class doesn't filter
valuation comments. I'm not sure whether it's a bug or the intended
behaviour.
The group is automatically assigned when we assign the heading. The
budget isn't needed either, except for a special case related to the
reason to be rejected.
