Commit Graph

8 Commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
Javi Martín
fc5103881d Use a switch to toggle visibility to valuators
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.
2024-10-28 13:41:55 +01:00
Javi Martín
173b1bb07c Make it possible to select investments without JavaScript 2024-10-28 13:41:55 +01:00
Javi Martín
54a48d63e1 Use separate actions to select/deselect investments
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.
2024-10-28 13:41:50 +01:00
Javi Martín
cf0d8258ed Use abilities to allow toggling investment selection
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.
2024-10-28 13:39:49 +01:00
Javi Martín
9981202c45 Add missing feature flag detection specs 2021-03-31 14:42:20 +02:00
Javi Martín
02981324ab Move exception tests to controller specs
System tests are used to test the application from the user's point of
view. To test for specific exceptions, particularly regarding
authorization permissions, controller tests fit better.

Another option would be to test the page displayed shows a certain text,
like "Internal server error". I'm choosing controller tests because
they're faster and we're basically testing the same scenario many times
and we've already got a test checking what happens when users access a
page raising an exception.
2021-03-31 14:42:20 +02:00
Javi Martín
5ef6c9c2b5 Simplify controller tests requiring admin login
Similar to what we did in commit 3da4ee00b for system tests.
2021-03-31 14:42:20 +02:00
Javi Martín
37e7eeb6e1 Don't redirect when toggling visible to valuators
After upgrading to Turbolinks 5, redirects are followed on AJAX
requests, so we were accidentally redirecting the user after they mark
an investment as visible to valuators.

There was already a system spec failing due to this issue ("Admin budget
investments Mark as visible to valuators Keeps the valuation tags");
however, it only failed in some cases, so we're adding additional tests.

Ideally we would write a system test to check what happens when users
click on the checkbox. However, from the user's point of view, nothing
happens when they do so, and so testing it is hard. There's a usability
issue here (no feedback is provided to the user indicating the
investment is actually updated when they click on the checkbox and so
they might look for a button to send the form), which also results in a
feature which is difficult to test.

So we're writing two tests instead: one checking the controller does not
redirect when using a JSON request, and one checking the form submits a
JSON request.

I've chosen JSON over AJAX because usually requests to the update action
come from the edit form, and we might change the edit form to send an
AJAX request (and, in this case, Turbolinks would handle the redirect as
mentioned above).

Another option would be to send an AJAX request to a different action,
like it's done for the toggle selection action. I don't have a strong
preference for either option, so I'm leaving it the way it was. At some
point we should change the user interface, though; right now in the same
row there are two actions doing basically the same thing (toggling
valuator visibility and toggling selection) but with very different user
interfaces (one is a checkbox and the other one a link changing its
style depending on the state), resulting in a confusing interface.
2020-10-26 15:12:39 +01:00