This is the only it_behaves_like "nested imageable" call where the has_many_images parameter is set to true.
Previously, the shared example skipped or altered expectations based on this parameter. Now, this behavior is
moved to the factory level (:future_poll_question_option).
Since this is an administrative section, a related administrator is created for the user.
Having a class named `Poll::Question::Answer` and another class named
`Poll::Answer` was so confusing that no developer working on the project
has ever been capable of remembering which is which for more than a few
seconds.
Furthermore, we're planning to add open answers to polls, and we might
add a reference from the `poll_answers` table to the
`poll_question_answers` table to property differentiate between open
answers and closed answers. Having yet another thing named answer would
be more than what our brains can handle (we know it because we did this
once in a prototype).
So we're renaming `Poll::Question::Answer` to `Poll::Question::Option`.
Hopefully that'll make it easier to remember. The name is also (more or
less) consistent with the `Legislation::QuestionOption` class, which is
similar.
We aren't changing the table or columns names for now in order to avoid
possible issues when upgrading (old code running with the new database
tables/columns after running the migrations but before deployment has
finished, for instance). We might do it in the future.
I've tried not to change the internationalization keys either so
existing translations would still be valid. However, since we have to
change the keys in `activerecord.yml` so methods like
`human_attribute_name` keep working, I'm also changing them in places
where similar keys were used (like `poll_question_answer` or
`poll/question/answer`).
Note that it isn't clear whether we should use `option` or
`question_option` in some cases. In order to keep things simple, we're
using `option` where we were using `answer` and `question_option` where
we were using `question_answer`.
Also note we're adding tests for the admin menu component, since at
first I forgot to change the `answers` reference there and all tests
passed.
As mentioned in commits 5311daadf and bb958daf0, using links combined
with JavaScript to generate POST (or, in this case, DELETE) requests to
the server has a few issues.
Note that the AJAX response stopped working after replacing the link
with a button. Not sure about the reason, but, since this is one of the
very few places where we use AJAX calls to delete content, the easiest
solution is to stop using AJAX and be consistent with what we do in the
rest of the admin section.
There's a link next to it that does the exact same thing and includes
the word "download", which was confusing in some cases since people
might think that links with different texts lead to different pages.
We were rendering the `new` action, but that action doesn't exist.
Before commit ec861ca8e, we were rendering the `edit` action of an
answer, which was confusing as well.
Note that, when adding an invalid document, `@answer.documents` contains
that invalid document (which is not present in the database). Since
we're rendering the index, this new document would appear in the list of
the documents that can be deleted; to avoid that, we're kind of
"reloading" the answer object in the component by finding the record in
the database. We aren't using `@answer.reload` because doing so would
remove the validation errors.
Note that the `create` action doesn't create an image but updates an
answer instead. We're removing the references to `:create` in the
abilities since it isn't used.
In the future we might change the form to add an image to an answer
because it's been broken for ages since it shows all the attached
images.
In some cases (e.g. after editing or creating a resource
with errors) the default back_link did not redirect to the
expected page.
Now we force the back_links to the index pages, so we
always get the desired redirect.
Until now, in order to edit an answer, we had to click on its title on
the table and then on the "Edit answer" link.
That was tedious and different from what we usually do in the admin
section. Furthermore, the code for the answers table was written twice
and when we modified it we forgot to update the one in the `show`
action, meaning the table here provided less information than the
information present in the answers tables.
Co-Authored-By: Javi Martín <javim@elretirao.net>
This way we don't have to write `"spec/fixtures/files"` every time.
Note this method isn't included in factories. We could include it like
so:
```
FactoryBot::SyntaxRunner.class_eval do
include ActiveSupport::Testing::FileFixtures
self.file_fixture_path = RSpec.configuration.file_fixture_path
end
```
However, I'm not sure about the possible side effects, and since we only
use attachments in a few factories, there isn't much gain in applying
the monkey-patch.
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>`
```
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.
Using `render :nothing` was deprecated, but we never noticed it because
we didn't have a test for the action using it. In Rails 5.1, it raises
an exception.
Using `head :ok` and adding a test for this scenario solves the issue.
