Today I learnt that `has_link?("text of link")` by default does an
includes instead of looking for a link with the exact text. This is not
the behaviour I want so I'm changing
`PageObjects::Components::Sidebar.has_section_link?` to use the
`exact_text` option instead.
Before, the review button was shown in `primary section` when there were items to review. Otherwise, it was hidden in `more section`.
Because we are allowing admins to customize community section and reorder link, it makes sense to simplify that logic and review link should follow admin's decision.
Allow admins to edit Community section. This includes drag and drop reorder, change names, delete and reset to default.
Visual improvements introduced in edit community section modal are available in edit custom section form as well. For example:
- drag and drop links to change their position;
- smaller icon picker.
What is the problem?
We are relying on RSpec custom matchers in system tests by defining
predicates in page objects. The problem is that this can result in a
system test unnecessarily waiting up till the full duration of
Capybara's default wait time when the RSpec custom matcher is used with
`not_to`. Considering this topic page object where we have a `has_post?`
predicate defined.
```
class Topic < PageObject
def has_post?
has_css?('something')
end
end
```
The assertion `expect(Topic.new).not_to have_post` will end up waiting
the full Capybara's default wait time since the RSpec custom matcher is
calling Capybara's `has_css?` method which will wait until the selector
appear. If the selector has already disappeared by the time the
assertion is called, we end up waiting for something that will never
exists.
This commit fixes such cases by introducing new predicates that uses
the `has_no_*` versions of Capybara's node matchers.
For future reference, `to have_css` and `not_to have_css` is safe to sue
because the RSpec matcher defined by Capbyara is smart enough to call
`has_css?` or `has_no_css?` based on the expectation of the assertion.
* DEV: move sidebar community section to database
Before, community section was hard-coded. In the future, we are planning to allow admins to edit it. Therefore, it has to be moved to database to `custom_sections` table.
Few steps and simplifications has to be made:
- custom section was hidden behind `enable_custom_sidebar_sections` feature flag. It has to be deleted so all forums, see community section;
- migration to add `section_type` column to sidebar section to show it is a special type;
- migration to add `segment` column to sidebar links to determine if link should be displayed in primary section or in more section;
- simplify more section to have one level only (secondary section links are merged);
- ensure that links like `everything` are correctly tracking state;
- make user an anonymous links position consistence. For example, from now on `faq` link for user and anonymous is visible in more tab;
- delete old community-section template.
Previously, public custom sections were only visible to logged-in users. In this PR, we are making them visible to anonymous as well.
The reason is that Community Section will be moved into custom section model to be easily editable by admins.
Before, incorrectly filled fields were marked with red border. Now, additional information under the field is displayed to notify the user what is incorrect.
/t/93696
Allows users to configure their own custom sidebar sections with links withing Discourse instance. Links can be passed as relative path, for example "/tags" or full URL.
Only path is saved in DB, so when Discourse domain is changed, links will be still valid.
Feature is hidden behind SiteSetting.enable_custom_sidebar_sections. This hidden setting determines the group which members have access to this new feature.
Alan Guo Xiang Tan
Krzysztof Kotlarek