This comment isn't necessary since Ruby 2.0, where UTF-8 became the
default encoding.
I've found this issue thanks to the EmptyLineAfterMagicComment rubocop
rule.
We were very inconsistent regarding these rules.
Personally I prefer no empty lines around blocks, clases, etc... as
recommended by the Ruby style guide [1], and they're the default values
in rubocop, so those are the settings I'm applying.
The exception is the `private` access modifier, since we were leaving
empty lines around it most of the time. That's the default rubocop rule
as well. Personally I don't have a strong preference about this one.
[1] https://rubystyle.guide/#empty-lines-around-bodies
The main reason to use it was the `rel` attribute for previous/next
pages not being indexed correctly by certain search engines when using a
relative URL. However, AFAIK that only applied to `<link>` tags, not to
`<a>` tags, and only if a `<base>` tag was defined.
In any case, it looks like the same search engines don't use the `rel`
attribute for previous/next to index pages anymore.
We were creating records with a title we manually set, so to be
consistent with the rest of the code, in the test we check the title is
present using a string literal.
This way we can also remove useless assignments while keeping the code
vertically aligned.
While in theory we wouldn't need to use the `transient` nor the
`after(:create)` because there's already a `has_many :through`
association with followers, Factory Bot / ActiveRecord don't
automatically associate the followable, resulting in an invalid record
exception.
These tests are only checking which proposals are not included in the
recommendations, so we don't need to sort the included ones, just like
we don't use the cached votes up attribute in the tests preceeding these
ones.
These specs were added before we disabled featured proposals by default.
After that, they were passing, but they were not testing the scenario
they were supposed to test.
Before we disabled featured proposals by default, there were many tests
creating them because they were needed in order to create non-featured
proposals.
But now these tests don't need to create featured proposals anymore.
We had a case where we created 5 extra records in pagination and checked
2 records were present, because the other 3 were automatically
considered featured proposals.
Explicitely creating featured proposals let us create 2 extra records
and check 2 records are present, which is far more intuitive.
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.
These settings are enabled by default.
It could be argued explicitely enabling the features makes tests more
consistent, because they'll work if we change the default setting. It
could also be argued that it makes tests more expressive because it
makes the reader realize certain things will only work if a setting is
enabled.
However, we were only doing so in a few tests. The truth is, thousands
of our tests depend on certain features being enabled. So IMHO we should
be consistent and either set them on every test, or not at all. I'm
choosing the latter option for simplicity.
Settings are stored in the database, and so any changes to the settings
done during the tests are automatically rolled back between one test and
the next one.
There were also a few places where we weren't using an `after` block but
changing the setting at the end of the test.
When clicking the button "Search", the link "newest" is already present,
so capybara might click the "newest" link before the "Search" request is
finished, leading to unexpected results.
Checking the page to make sure the "Search" request has finished before
clicking the "newest" link solves the problem.
We understand languages management as the ability to add new languages
or remove existing ones. When no option is passed it will allow language
manipulation by default.
There are 3 special places where we want block languages management:
- admin legislation processes homepage
- admin legislation processes milestones summary
- proposals retired form
Co-Authored-By: Sebastia <sebastia.roig@gmail.com>
* Convert proposal form into translatable one.
* Adapt translatable shared spec to define an owner when running at
frontend feature specs.
* Remove old attributes from strong parameters.
After adding proposal translatable fields to forms, they will be generated with nested translations names and ids so we can no longer
use standard id locator.
Using input label text to fill in fields works with both types of forms.
Adapt retire form to include needed translations and move validations
from controller to model.
Also change sanitizable concern to sanitize not marked for destruction
translations.
