The DFC doesn't actually specify which cup it means. I don't expect
anyone providing "cup" as unit to measure their produce and expect it to
calculate as a regular volume. It can just be seen as items.
This spec was nested within another block that executed a form submit
which we don't actually need here. So I flattened the structure and
repeated the few missing lines of code. This speeds up the execution.
The fee type is important in the setup because it determines the order
of the fees on the page and we access the rows by their row index.
This commit is best viewed without whitespace changes.
The problem here was that the second fee was created in a `let!` block
that came after a `before` block which visited the page. In some cases
it worked but sometimes the fee wasn't created yet when the page was
loaded. Form changes in the second row were not affecting the second fee
as intended.
We still have the scale stored in two places but in our current system
that's part of a unit's "id".
If the DFC adds that value to its standard then we can use it for lookup
and don't need to repeat it.
* https://github.com/datafoodconsortium/taxonomies/issues/7
I observed new data from the DFC Prototype. It now uses the DFC 1.8
ontology with the hasQuantity object.
It now also uses PUT requests for updates because PATCH is not as well
supported. Rails doesn't care though.
I couldn't observe a request for the CatalogItem yet because the
Prototype failed to send it.
This means you can click on the label name to select the field, and accessibility software can read the label name. I was motivated to do this so that we could update the spec to use label text rather than IDs. But it seems we can't do that with tom-select.
I've updated the styles for all form labels (in admin_style_v3 toggle) to match the design.
An inner join with the billing address was hiding some orders when
sorting by billing address name. Telling Rails that those fields are
referenced triggers an outer left join including orders without billing
address.
But when the Bulk Order Management page sorts by `bill_address_lastname`
then Ransack does most of the magic, except that we need to override the
select in combination with distinct results.
'let!' is executed in the same way as 'before', so it matters which order they are defined in.
For contexts with a single example, I just put it straight into the example.
bill_address is already joined in this query.
The class variable isn't needed outside this scope.
Arguably I think the condition on the select isn't needed; it wouldn't hurt to always select spree_addresses. But I'll try to avoid changing too much..
System specs are expensive. And this spec just looked for the visibility
of certain elements while other tests actually use them and therefore
verify their function much more thoroughly.
