The `show_caption_for?` method was used to determine whether to check for the
presence of a `figcaption` element, but its only purpose was to skip the check
when the factory was `:budget.
The reason we skip the `figcaption` check for `:budget` is that it is the only case
where the test is verifying the form's edit page, where displaying a `figcaption` does
not make sense.
This method was removed as its logic was redundant or unnecessary:
- For "Proposal" new:
After creating a proposal, we are redirected to the "created" page, where the text
"Not now, go to my proposal" is not present, leading to a constant
`rescue Capybara::ElementNotFound`.
Instead, the "created" page shows a preview of how the proposal will look when
published and a link saying "No, I want to publish the proposal". Since the click's
purpose was to navigate to the proposal's "show" page, and this can already be
verified on the "created" page, no additional handling is needed for this case.
- For "Proposal" edit:
After updating the proposal, we are directly redirected to the proposal's "show" page,
so no click_link logic is necessary here either.
- For "Budget":
The redirection is now handled directly with:
`visit edit_admin_budget_path(imageable) if factory == :budget`.
In the imageable_attach_new_file method used in this tests the:
> expect(page).to have_css ".loading-bar.errors"
is already being checked.
Therefore, to leave only the line:
> imageable_attach_new_file(file_fixture("logo_header.png"), false)
in the test, since there is another test that verifies it,
I think we can remove the test altogether.
In the imageable_attach_new_file method used in these tests the:
> expect(page).to have_css ".loading-bar.complete"
is already being checked, so there is no need to verify it twice.
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.
Make `path`, `fill_resource_method_name`, `submit_button`, and
`imageable_success_notice` dynamic based on the factory.
Also adjusted the user. The proposals no longer require the user to be an
administrator but do require them to be a level 2 user.
Note that we are adding the Style/CaseLikeIf rubocop rule.
Removed `imageable_path_arguments`, `has_many_images`, and `management` parameters
because they are not used by budgets.
Hardcoded `path`, `fill_resource_method_name`, `submit_button`, and
`imageable_success_notice`parameters for budgets. These remain fixed for now until dynamic
values are required in the next commits.
It looks like not all screen readers identify SVG images with empty aria
labels as a decorative image, as reported by the Axe accessibility
engine.
So we're using `aria-hidden` instead, since we don't want the text of
the SVG to be read by screen readers. We're using `aria-hidden` instead
of the `presentation` role for the reasons mentioned in commit
35659d441.
We're using the `aria-label` attribute instead of a label because this
is a page where only one field is rendered and the text of the label is
the same as the text of the <h1> tag.
We're using `aria-label` instead of `aria-labelledby` because the former
is supported by Capybara.
In order for this attribute to be applied, due to the syntax of the
`select` method, it should be in a separate hash.
We're removing it instead of correctly applying it because we never use
the `tabindex` attribute with a positive value, since it might break
keyboard navigation.
We were using one label for both date selectors, but it wasn't
associated with any of them.
So we're now rendering one label per control and, just like we only show
one of these date selectors at a time, we're only showing one label at a
time.
The default `date_select` used in fields presents an accessibility
issue, because in generates three select controls but only one label.
That means that there are two controls without a label.
So we're using a date field instead. This type is field is supported by
about 99% of the browsers, and we've already got JavaScript code
converting this field to a jQuery UI datepicker in case the browser
doesn't support date fields.
Note that, since we no longer need to parse the three date fields into
one, we can simplify the code in both the models and the tests.
Another slight improvement is that, previously, we couldn't restrict the
month and day controls in order to set the minimum date, so the maximum
selectable date was always the 31st of December of the year set by the
minimum age setting. As seen in the component test, now that we use only
one field, we can set a specific date as the maximum one.
We reduce code duplication thanks to that, and make it easier
to change this field.
Note that there was one place where the "16.years" value was
hardcoded. We're moving the test for this case to the
component and changing it so the test doesn't use the default
age.
We're also removing the redundant helper method that had the
same code as a method in the User class which is called
everywhere else.
All the expectations checked after the `click_link "Check my votes"`
action were already true before clicking the link, meaning the test
could finish before the request did.
It's possible that this request caused a test run 8274, job 2 [1], since
a multitenancy test failed and a possible cause could have been
simultaneous requests to both a tenant subdomain and the application's
main domain. The failure was:
```
1) Multitenancy PostgreSQL extensions work for tenants
Failure/Error: expect(page).to have_content "Proposal created
successfully."
expected to find text "Proposal created successfully." in
"Language: \n
\nEnglish\nDeutsch\nEspañol\nFrançais\nNederlands\nPortuguês
brasileiro\n中文\n Notifications\nMy content\nMy account\nSign
out\nDebates\nYou are in\nProposals\nVoting\nCollaborative
legislation\nParticipatory budgeting\nSDG\nHelp\nProposals\nCreate new
proposal\nHow do citizen proposals work?\nRecommendations for creating a
proposal\nDo not use capital letters for the proposal title or for whole
sentences. On the internet, this is considered shouting. And nobody
likes being shouted at.\nAny proposal or comment suggesting illegal
action will be deleted, as well as those intending to sabotage the
debate spaces. Anything else is allowed.\nEnjoy this space and the
voices that fill it. It belongs to you too.\n×\n1 error prevented this
Proposal from being saved.\nPlease check the marked fields to know how
to correct them:\nREQUIRED FIELDS\nProposal title\nProposal
summary\n(maximum 200 characters)\ntsvector for María the
Martian\nProposal text\n Format\n ◢\n If you are human, ignore
this field\nOPTIONAL FIELDS\nExternal video URL\nYou may add a link to
YouTube or Vimeo\nDescriptive image\nYou can upload one image of
following content types: jpg, up to 1 MB.\nAdd image\nDocuments\nYou can
upload up to a maximum of 3 documents of following content types: pdf,
up to 3 MB per file.\nAdd new document\nTags\nTag this proposal. You can
choose from proposed categories or add your own\nCategories\n\nFull name
of the person submitting the proposal\n(individually or as
representative of a collective; will not be displayed publically)\ncan't
be blank, is too short (minimum is 6 characters)\nSustainable
Development Goals and Targets\nYou can choose one or several SDGs
aligned with your citizen proposal\nGoals and Targets\nYou can introduce
the code of a specific goal/target or a text to find one. For more
information visit the SDG help page.\nI agree to the Privacy Policy and
the Terms and conditions of use\nOpen government\nThis portal uses the
CONSUL DEMOCRACY application which is open-source
software.\nParticipation\nDecide how to shape the city you want to live
in.\nCONSUL DEMOCRACY, 2024 Privacy Policy Terms and conditions of use
Accessibility"
```
Note the `can't be blank, is too short` reference to the responsible
name, which is only checked when user verification is not skipped. In
this test, the `mars` tenant skips the verification while the default
tenant does not. The mentioned possibility of simultaneous requests
might have caused the issue.
[1] https://github.com/consuldemocracy/consuldemocracy/actions/runs/11747689680/job/32730131655
