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.
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 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.
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.
In JavaScript, when there isn't a `break` or `return` statement inside a
`switch` case, the next case will be executed as well.
That wasn't a problem here because CoffeeScript automatically inserts a
`return` statement in this specific situation. However, since we don't
want to return the result of the `hide()` operation, it might be easy to
accidentally remove the `return` statement, causing the code to break.
I've added a test for the scenario where neither `break` nor `return`
statements are present, so we don't run into this error.
This number was not the important one; the important one is the one
given by the recounts.
Note we're also removing the votes by date, since they're also system
votes.
System count isn't a relevant number because the important one is the
number of votes counted by poll officers. We're still maintaining it for
a month in case poll officers would like to review the results.
The `type: :feature` is automatically detected by RSpec because these
tests are inside the `spec/features` folder. Using `feature` re-adds a
`type: :feature` to these files, which will result in a conflict when we
upgrade to Rails 5.1's system tests.
Because of this change, we also need to change `background` to `before`
or else these tests will fail.
The line:
create(:poll_voter, booth_assignment: booth_assignment_final_recounted)
Creates a new poll for the poll voter. Not only it wastes time by
creating new database records, but it doesn't make sense to have a poll
voter for a poll which isn't the same as its booth assignment's poll.
