Creating more than 25 records isn't necessary to test pagination; we can
stub the number of records per page in a test.
On my machine we save about one second per test with these changes.
* Add custom message for inclusion validation to include the allowed values.
* Force user to choose document_type from select lik the one shown at verification form.
* Convert stored document_type to a human readable text
The new CSV report was more configurable and could work on proposals,
processes and comments. However, it had several issues.
In the public area, by default it generated a blank file.
In the admin section, the report was hard to configure and it generated
a file with less quality than the old system.
So until we improve this system, we're bringing back the old investment
CSV exporter.
This commit reverts most of commit 9d1ca3bf.
The name of the changed field is translated, values are truncated so
descriptions with thousands of character would make this table huge and
impossible to read, dates are localized, and values like arrays and
booleans are displayed properly.
The current tracking section had a few issues:
* When browsing as an admin, this section becomes useless since no
investments are shown
* Browsing investments in the admin section, you're suddenly redirected
to the tracking section, making navigation confusing
* One test related to the officing dashboard failed due to these changes
and had been commented
* Several views and controller methods were copied from other sections,
leading to duplication and making the code harder to maintain
* Tracking routes were defined for proposals and legislation processes,
but in the tracking section only investments were shown
* Probably many more things, since these issues were detected after only
an hour reviewing and testing the code
So we're removing this untested section before releasing version 1.1. We
might add it back afterwards.
We were manually doing the same thing, generating inconsistent results,
since the method `valuation_tag_list` was using the `valuation` context,
when actually the expected behavior would be to use the `valuation_tag`
context.
We need to add a hidden field for each group of check boxes, so if we
don't check anything, the hidden field is sent to the server, indicating
nothing was selected. Without the hidden field, the server will not know
anything has been done to the check boxes.
The easiest way to do it is using `collection_check_boxes`, which also
adds labels to every check box.
Unfortunately this feature wasn't properly reviewed and tested, and it
had many bugs, some of them critical and hard to fix, like validations
being skipped in concurrent requests.
So we're removing it before releasing version 1.1. We might add it back
in the future if we manage to solve the critical issues.
This commit reverts commit 836f9ba7.
This method is ambiguous. Sometimes we use it to set invalid data in
tests (which can usually be done with `update_column`), and other times
we use it instead of `update!`.
I'm removing it because, even if sometimes it could make sense to use
it, it's too similar to `update_attributes` (which is an alias for
`update` and runs validations), making it confusing.
However, there's one case where we're still using it: in the
ActsAsParanoidAliases module, we need to invoke the callbacks, which
`update_column` skips, but tests related to translations fail if we use
`update!`. The reason for this is the tests check what happens if we
restore a record without restoring its translations. But that will make
the record invalid, since there's a validation rule checking it has at
least one translation.
I'm not blacklisting any other method which skips validations because we
know they skip validations and use them anyway (hopefully with care).
We were inconsistent on this one. I consider it particularly useful when
a method starts with a `return` statement.
In other cases, we probably shouldn't have a guard rule in the middle of
a method in any case, but that's a different refactoring.
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
We were already using `find_by` most of the time.
Since there are false positives related to our `find_by_slug_or_id!` and
`find_by_manger_login` methods, which cannot be replaced with `find_by`,
I'm adding it indicating the "refactor" severity.
It looks like we get this warning if we check the dialog message. Using
`accept_confirm` the same way we do in the rest of the application
solves the problem.
Having exceptions is better than having silent bugs.
There are a few methods I've kept the same way they were.
The `RelatedContentScore#score_with_opposite` method is a bit peculiar:
it creates scores for both itself and the opposite related content,
which means the opposite related content will try to create the same
scores as well.
We've already got a test to check `Budget::Ballot#add_investment` when
creating a line fails ("Edge case voting a non-elegible investment").
Finally, the method `User#send_oauth_confirmation_instructions` doesn't
update the record when the email address isn't already present, leading
to the test "Try to register with the email of an already existing user,
when an unconfirmed email was provided by oauth" fo fail if we raise an
exception for an invalid user. That's because updating a user's email
doesn't update the database automatically, but instead a confirmation
email is sent.
There are also a few false positives for classes which don't have bang
methods (like the GraphQL classes) or destroying attachments.
For these reasons, I'm adding the rule with a "Refactor" severity,
meaning it's a rule we can break if necessary.
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.
This way we can simplify the way we generate form fields. In some cases,
we also use the human attribute in table headers, which IMHO makes
sense.
I haven't moved all of them: for example, sometimes a label is
different depending on whether it's shown to administrators, valuators,
or users. And I haven't touched the ones related to devise, since I
wasn't sure about possible side effects.
Note I've also removed placeholders when they had the same text as their
labels, since they weren't helpful. On the contrary, the added redundant
text to the form, potentially distracting users.
This is a very subtle behaviour: `match /attachment/i` could represent a
regular expression, but it could also represent a division like
`match / attachment / i`. So we need to make an exception to the usual
way we omit parenthesis in RSpec expectations.
Naming two variables the same way is confusing at the very least, and
can lead to hard to debug errors. That's why the Ruby interpreter issues
a warning when we do so.
It could be argued that the following lines use single quotes to escape
double quotes, but on the other hand, using a single quote isn't a
great benefit.
I haven't found an elegant way to remove them, but since they were the
only three variables left out of 383 we used to have, I can live with
this low percentage of inelegant solutions.
There's a very common pattern in our test, where the setup only has two
lines:
variable = create(:something)
unused_variable = create(:something_else, something: variable)
In this case, since there's a blank line below these ones and then we'll
get to the body of the test, and the second variable is going to be
created based on the first variable, we can remove the useless
assignment and the readability is still OK.
Another option we almost unanimously discarded was:
variable = create(:something)
_unused_variable = create(:something_else, something: variable)
We don't use it anywhere else, either.
One more option we considered but found a bit too much for simple tests:
variable = create(:something) do |something|
create(:something_else, something: variable)
end
Then of course we could move the setup to `let` and `before` blocks, but
the tests could get over-structured really quickly.
These variables can be considered a block, and so removing them doesn't
make the test much harder to undestand.
Sometimes these variables formed the setup, sometimes they formed an
isolated part of the setup, and sometimes they were the part of the test
that made the test different from other tests.
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.
