Even if "r" is shorter, "regular" is easier to understand, and we're
going to store these icons in a folder named "regular", which is the
convention Font Awesome uses.
After upgrading to Turbolinks 5, redirects are followed on AJAX
requests, so we were accidentally redirecting the user after they mark
an investment as visible to valuators.
There was already a system spec failing due to this issue ("Admin budget
investments Mark as visible to valuators Keeps the valuation tags");
however, it only failed in some cases, so we're adding additional tests.
Ideally we would write a system test to check what happens when users
click on the checkbox. However, from the user's point of view, nothing
happens when they do so, and so testing it is hard. There's a usability
issue here (no feedback is provided to the user indicating the
investment is actually updated when they click on the checkbox and so
they might look for a button to send the form), which also results in a
feature which is difficult to test.
So we're writing two tests instead: one checking the controller does not
redirect when using a JSON request, and one checking the form submits a
JSON request.
I've chosen JSON over AJAX because usually requests to the update action
come from the edit form, and we might change the edit form to send an
AJAX request (and, in this case, Turbolinks would handle the redirect as
mentioned above).
Another option would be to send an AJAX request to a different action,
like it's done for the toggle selection action. I don't have a strong
preference for either option, so I'm leaving it the way it was. At some
point we should change the user interface, though; right now in the same
row there are two actions doing basically the same thing (toggling
valuator visibility and toggling selection) but with very different user
interfaces (one is a checkbox and the other one a link changing its
style depending on the state), resulting in a confusing interface.
We removed it in commit d639cd58 because it recommended using `uniq`
where `distinct` was more appropriate. This has been fixed in
rubocop-rails 2.6.0.
This is something we should do everywhere because concurrent requests
might bypass Rails uniqueness validations. However, since there are
places where we aren't applying this rule and adding a unique index
means we also need to destroy any hypothetical duplicate records, it's
something we aren't going to solve right now. Therefore we use the
"refactor" severity so existing offenses don't get in our way.
In any case, we're adding the rule so we don't make the same mistake in
the future.
This rule was added in rubocop-rspec 1.39.0. The `visible: false` option
is equivalent to `visible: :all`, but we generally use it meaning
`visible: :hidden` for positive expectations and `visible: :all` for
negative expectations.
The only exceptations are tests where we count the number of map icons
present. I'm assuming in this case we care about the number of map icons
independently on whether they are currently shown in the map, so I'm
keeping the `visible: :all` behavior in this case.
By default, Capybara only finds visible elements, so adding the
`visible: true` option is usually redundant.
We were using it sometimes to make it an obvious contrast with another
test using `visible: false`. However, from the user's perspective, we
don't care whether the element has been removed from the DOM or has been
hidden, so we can just test that the visible selector can't be found.
Besides, using `visible: false` means the test will also pass if the
element is present and visible. However, we want the test to fail if the
element is visible. That's why a couple of JavaScript-dependant tests
were passing even when JavaScript was disabled.
These tests were supposed to check the link to vote is hidden when users
don't have permission to vote. However, they aren't testing that, since
the `visible: false` option also matches visible elements. The links are
actually considered visible since they're displayed by the browser;
there's just another element on top of them.
Using `obscured: true` instead of `visible: false` solves the issue.
However, while the `obscured` option is true when the element is hidden
by another element, it's also true when the element is not currently
visible in the browser window, so in some cases we need to scroll so the
condition is effective.
This rule was added in Rubocop 0.91.0. A similar rule named
LeakyConstantDeclaration was added in rubocop-rspec 1.34.0.
Note using the FILENAMES constant did not result in an offense using the
ConstantDefinitionInBlock rule but did result in an offense using the
LeakyConstantDeclaration rule. I've simplified the code to get rid of
the constant; not sure why we were adding a constant with `||=` in the
middle of a spec.
This rule was added in Rubocop 0.89.0. However, there are some false
positives when we don't use interpolation but simply concatenate in
order to avoid long lines. Even if there weren't false positives, there
are places where we concatenate to emphasize the point that we're adding
a certain character to a text.
We might reconsider this rule in the future, since we generally prefer
interpolation over concatenation.
The original devise_security_extension gem has not been maintained for
years. Its last release was version 0.10.0, and wasn't compatible with
Rails 5, and so we were using its master branch.
Since the gem was unmaintained, it was forked as devise-security and the
aforementioned master branch was released as version 0.10.1. This
version wasn't published in Rubygems, though, so we're now using the
first version that was published in Rubygems and had a release
announment [1].
Dependabot will probably open a pull request to upgrade to the latest
version, but for now I'm trying to keep the devise-security gem as
similar as the version we were using to make sure they're compatible,
particularly considering we're monkey-patching some of the modules
provided by this gem.
[1] https://github.com/devise-security/devise-security/releases/tag/v0.11.1
Using `travel` we go to `Time.now + interval`. If the application's time
zone changes due to seasonal clock changes during that interval, we
might travel to a time which is not the time we intended to travel to.
Example:
On a system using the UTC time zone, it's 9AM on October 25 (Friday).
Since by default CONSUL uses the Madrid time zone, it means the
application's time is 11AM.
We use `travel` to advance three days. That means we go to 9AM UTC on
October 28 (Monday). The application's time will be 10AM due to the
seasonal clock change, so we haven't fully traveled three days in
application's time.
To reproduce locally, run:
```
TZ=UTC rspec spec/system/proposal_notifications_spec.rb:410
```
Using `travel_to` with `3.days.from_now`, which uses the application's
time zone and so it will travel to October 28 at 11AM, solves the
problem.
There were places where we had two links pointing to the same place; one
link would be the name/title of a record, and one link would be under
the "actions" column.
This is confusing, since users would probably expect these links to
point to different places (which is what happens in other tables in the
admin section) and might try to click one of them and then the other
one and be surprised when they found out both of them go to the same
page.
This way we can remove duplication and simplify the code in the view.
Note we're not using the "within" method in the tests to access a row,
because it doesn't seem to work in components tests when passing the
`text:` option.
In the past we were using some <div> tags surrounding table action
links in order to guarantee these links wouldn't be wider that their
cell's space and wouldn't expand over two lines.
However, while these links didn't expand over two lines, at certain
resolutions the width of their text exceeded the width of the links,
causing part of the text to be outside their borders.
This behavior was also inconsistent: some tables had these <div> tags,
and some tables didn't.
Since we've now introduced the table actions component, the code is more
consistent and we're getting rid of these <div> tags. So now we're again
facing the issue where links could expand over two lines.
Using a flex layout solves this issue and considerably improves the
layout at lower resolutions.
