As mentioned in commit 5311daadf, there are several reasons to use
buttons in these situations. And, as mentioned in the previous commits,
using buttons instead of links for actions requiring confirmation will
help us test for accessibility issues.
As mentioned in commit 5311daadf, there are several reasons to use
buttons in these situations. And, as mentioned in the previous commits,
using buttons instead of links for actions requiring confirmation will
help us test for accessibility issues.
Since we're adding styles for this button, we're also adding the
`font-size` property instead of using the `small` class. We'll deal with
the `float-right` property in the next commit.
The initialjs-rails gem hasn't been maintained for years, and it
currently requires `railties < 7.0`, meaning we can't upgrade to Rails 7
while we depend on it.
Since the code in the gem is simple, and we were already rewriting its
most complex part (generating a background color), we can implement the
same code, only we're using Ruby instead of JavaScript. This way, the
avatars will be shown on browsers without JavaScript as well. Since
we're adding a component test that checks SVG images are displayed even
without JavaScript, we no longer need the test that checked images were
displayed after AJAX requests.
Now the tests show the user experience better; people don't care about
the internal name used to select the initial (which is what we were
checking); they care about the initial actually displayed.
Note initialjs generated an <img> tag using a `src="data:image/svg+xml;`
attribute. We're generating an <svg> tag instead, because it's easier.
For this reason, we need to change the code slightly, giving the <svg>
tag the `img` role and using `aria-label` so its contents won't be read
aloud by screen readers. We could give it a `presentation` role instead
and forget about `aria-label`, but then screen readers would read the
text anyway (or, at least, some of them would).
This rule was added in rubocop-capybara 2.19.0. We were following it
about 85% of the time.
Now we won't have to check both have_css and have_selector when
searching the code.
We applied the Capybara/SpecificMatcher in commit f52a86b46. However,
this rule doesn't convert methods finding <a> tags to methods finding
links because <a> tags only count as links when they've got the `href`
attribute. For instance, in the `xss_spec.rb` file we check what happens
when clicking on an anchor tag because we're testing that the `href`
attribute has been removed and so we can't use `click_link`.
So, basically, we can't enable a rule to automatically detect when we're
using `have_css` instead of `have_link`, but we should still do it
because `have_link` adds an extra check which affects accessibility
since it makes sure the tag has the `href` attribute and so it's
recognizable as a link by screen readers.
Note we're excluding a few files:
* Configuration files that weren't generated by us
* Migration files that weren't generated by us
* The Gemfile, since it includes an important comment that must be on
the same line as the gem declaration
* The Budget::Stats class, since the heading statistics are a mess and
having shorter lines would require a lot of refactoring
The map feature was never implemented for debates (only for proposals
and budget investments) and it was crashing for debates because the page
didn't load the geozones. And we don't have a "geozone" field in the
debates form either.
So we're removing the map page alongside its (pending implementation)
tests.
Adding the error to the translation means Rails will automatically show
the error message in the view.
We're also adding a test to make sure the error message is correctly
displayed.
We now have duplication in the validation rules, however. Validating
translatable attributes is still a bit of mess.
Sometimes tests were hanging indefinitely. Debugging shows that in some
cases it's due to submitting a form before the AJAX request to get
proposals, debates or investments suggestions is finished, since having
an AJAX and a non-AJAX request at the same time when running the test
sometimes leads to unexpected results.
In our case, we were having many timeouts in Github Actions in the
branches where we use both ActiveStorage and Paperclip to store files
(based on pull request 4598). I can reproduce it in those branches
running the following test ("Should show new image after successful
creation with one uploaded file"), although only when my laptop isn't
plugged (!!):
```
rspec './spec/system/proposals_spec.rb[1:33:1:14]'
```
Since we didn't have a proper way to know the AJAX request had finished,
we're adding a `suggest-success` class to the element showing the
suggestions when that happens. Then in the tests we can look for that
class after filling in the title of a proposal, debate or investments.
Just for clarity's sake, we're also adding the `suggest-loading` class
when the suggestions are loading.
In order not to have expectations everywhere about the suggestions,
we're extracting methods to fill in those titles in the tests. Note we
aren't using these methods in the "edit" actions (suggestions are not
showing when editing) or in tests with the `no_js` tag (since
suggestions only work with JavaScript).
We're not adding the rule because it would apply the current line length
rule of 110 characters per line. We still haven't decided whether we'll
keep that rule or make lines shorter so they're easier to read,
particularly when vertically splitting the editor window.
So, for now, I'm applying the rule to lines which are about 90
characters long.
Using `flex` instead of a fixed width for the navigation, the elements
take all the available space when the search form isn't present. That
wasn't the case before and produced a strange effect on medium-sized
screens.
This way we also align the search to the right.
In general, we shold check the contents of the page instead of the
current path, since the contents of the page are what users experience.
In one test, the only reason we check the current path additionally to
the contents of the page is to make sure we're still in the management
section.
Checking just that we avoid querying the database after starting the
browser.
When we create a record like a debate or an event and we check the page
content, we want to make sure that today's date is present, since it's
the date where the record is supposed to have been created.
This way we avoid querying the database after the browser has been
started.
These tests check what happens from the user's point of view. For
instance, we check that after disabling recommendations, they are not
shown. What happens in the database is not related to the user
experience.
Furthermore, checking the database after the browser has started is
proving to be a major source for inconsistent data in specs.
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.
Content like lowercase letters with `text-transform: uppercase` or
spaces after elements with `display: block` or "You're on page:" are not
seen that way by users with a browser supporting CSS.
So we're testing what most users actually experience.
These fields are hidden for users with a browser supporting CSS and is
only there to fool bots, so we're testing the case of an attack by bots
using browsers with no CSS support.
Using `have_current_path`, Capybara waits until the condition is true,
while using `include` the expectation is evaluated immediately and so
tests might fail when using a driver supporting JavaScript.
Besides, using `have_current_path` the error message is more readable
when the test fails.
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.
We were using a custom icon because in the past social-share-button
didn't have support for whatsapp. But now that it does, we can remove
our custom icon.
Note we're using the `_app` suffix because that's the name of the icon
meant for mobile devices.
We were doing the same tests three times to test the advanced search
feature. I'm grouping them in one place and shuffling the sections
around to remove duplication and make the test suite faster.
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.
We weren't using `foundation()` in these cases, so after flagging a
debate or a comment, we had to reload the page before we could unflag
it.
We're also adding a test for the fix in commit ea85059d. This test shows
it's necessary to filter the elements with JavaSctipt using `first()` if
we want the same code to work with comments.
Co-Authored-By: taitus <sebastia.roig@gmail.com>
