Byebug hasn't been maintained for years, and it isn't fully compatible
with Zeitwerk [1]. On the other hand, Ruby includes the debug gem since
version 3.1.0. We tried to start using at after commit e74eff217, but
couldn't do so because our CI was hanging forever in a test related to
machine learning, with the message:
> DEBUGGER: Attaching after process X fork to child process Y
(Note this message appeared with debug 1.6.3 but not with the version
we're currently using.)
So we're changing the debug gem fork mode in the test so it doesn't hang
anymore when running our CI. We tried to change the test so it wouldn't
call `Process.fork`, but this required changing the code, and since
there are no tests checking machine learning behavior with real scripts,
we aren't sure whether these script would keep working after changing
the code.
[1] Issue 564 in https://github.com/deivid-rodriguez/byebug
In Rails 6.1, the classic autoloader is deprecated.
We were getting an error because we were using `autoload` in the
ActiveStorage plugin for CKEditor:
expected file app/lib/ckeditor/backend/active_storage.rb to define
constant Ckeditor::Backend::ActiveStorage
So we're removing the line causing the error.
Finally, we can now restore all the tests that that failed sometimes
with the classic autoloader and that we modified in commits 2af1fc72f
and 8ba37b295.
We were getting a few errors when trying out Zeitwerk:
```
expected file lib/sms_api.rb to define constant SmsApi
expected file app/components/layout/common_html_attributes_component.rb
to define constant Layout::CommonHtmlAttributesComponent
```
In these cases, we aren't using an inflection because we also define the
`Verification::SmsController` and a few migrations containing `Html` in
their class name, and none of them would work if we defined the
inflection.
We were also getting an error regarding classes containing WYSIWYG in
its name:
```
NameError: uninitialized constant WYSIWYGSanitizer
Did you mean? WysiwygSanitizer
```
In this case, adding the acronym is easier, since we never use "Wysiwyg"
in the code but we use "WYSIWYG" in many places.
The `alt` attribute is mandatory in image tags. In this case, we're
leaving it empty because we also display text showing whether comments
are made by administrators, moderators or organizations.
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).
These images are always displayed next to a username, meaning people
using screen readers were hearing the same username twice in a row.
Even though we're about to replace the initialjs gem, we're making this
change in case so we've got one more test and we can check everything
keeps working after replacing the gem.
Note that the `budget` parameter was added to the `delete_path` method
so it works in the tests; on production, it worked because this
component is only rendered on pages which already have the `budget`
parameter.
Co-authored-by: Javi Martín <javim@elretirao.net>
This was accidentally introduced in commit 64aa1ffe0. Pronto didn't
detect it because the line itself was fine; the problem lied in its
place within the file.
All these types of tests have already been grouped together in the
comments_specs file which contains different factories including
budget_investments.
I don't think it is necessary to maintain these tests.
The test "display administrator id on public views" is not correct. The valuation comments
are not display never on public views. If we reload this admin page we can see that the
description is render instead of administrator_id as we can see at the upper test:
```
scenario "display administrator description on admin views"
```
The deleted test was passed because there is an error at the moment to render the comments.
As we can see in the file ´app/views/comments/create.js.erb:10´ we try render comment
without valuation value:
```
App.Comments.add_comment(parent_id, "<li><%= j(render @comment) %></li>");
```
That it is necessary to render correctly the description or the id.
By other hand the test "public users not see admin description" is already being checked
in the 'system/comments_specs'. However, we are going to add a new expectation to
make sure that the admin description does not appear on the public pages.
Note that the click_link "Reply" is now inside a "within".
This is due to the case of "legislation_annotation" before in the original test
no comment was created as it simply took the one created by default when creating
a "legislation_annotation".
```
annotation = create(:legislation_annotation, author: citizen)
comment = annotation.comments.first
```
Now to try to unify this test, we always create a comment, and in this case as we
also created the "legislation_annotation" we have 2 comments, so it is necessary
to add the "click_link" inside the "within".
Note that the click_link "Reply" is now inside a "within".
This is due to the case of "legislation_annotation" before in the original test
no comment was created as it simply took the one created by default when creating
a "legislation_annotation".
```
annotation = create(:legislation_annotation, author: citizen)
comment = annotation.comments.first
```
Now to try to unify this test, we always create a comment, and in this case as we
also created the "legislation_annotation" we have 2 comments, so it is necessary
to add the "click_link" inside the "within".
Note that the click_link "Reply" is now inside a "within".
This is due to the case of "legislation_annotation" before in the original test
no comment was created as it simply took the one created by default when creating
a "legislation_annotation".
```
comment = annotation.comments.first
```
Now to try to unify this test, we always create a comment, and in this case as we
also created the "legislation_annotation" we have 2 comments, so it is necessary
to add the "click_link" inside the "within".
Note that the click_link "Reply" is now inside a "within".
This is due to the case of "legislation_annotation" before in the original test
no comment was created as it simply took the one created by default when creating
a "legislation_annotation".
```
annotation = create(:legislation_annotation, author: citizen)
comment = annotation.comments.first
```
Now to try to unify this test, we always create a comment, and in this case as we
also created the "legislation_annotation" we have 2 comments, so it is necessary
to add the "click_link" inside the "within".
