Now we don't have to specify the field names on products, yay!
I tried desparately to get it working for the nested variant forms too, but sadly the form builder refuses to acknowledge the relationship. The form builder simply doesn't support a collection of objects in this way.
We could try creating a fake model similar to ProductSet that accepts_nested_attributes_for :products. But it woudl be better to create a custom form builder to do it.
Or, just manually specify field names for now!
I have to admit I don't fully understand why, but it seems to work, even though the rails guide says "only one level of arrayness is allowed (https://guides.rubyonrails.org/form_helpers.html#combining-them). Maybe it's ok here because it's not an array of arrays.
(I think this format is what the reflex spec was already testing).
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.
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..
Before, it would abort after the first invalid record, and it doesn't tell you about the others. This way you find out about all at once.
This affects the existing Bulk Edit Products screen, and can result in longer error messages than before. But I would argue that's a good thing.
I think this is technically optional for BUU at this point, but a helpful improvement.
Perhaps this should be tested in the system spec too ("I can rename a product and still see it after saving"). But I'd like to find the compromise to avoid bulking up system specs too much. I think it's covered well enough by the reflex spec?
(For now at least,) we use one big standard Rails form, and ModelSet to update each record.
Submitting with Reflex allows us to manage the loading state along with the rest of the page (although I would rather use the built in HTTP POST standard).
Aria-label makes it a bit easier for testing (and accessibility software of course!). Technically it should have been aria-labelledby="id_of_column_header" but that would have resulted in more HTML and processing, which seemed silly.
Best viewed with whitespace ignored.
Also introducing a view spec here because the code was incorrectly
refactored before. The execution of the view spec takes only 100ms
which is much faster than a system spec.
