If you have a non-required select field in a questionnaire, it is possible to leave that field blank in ODK.
If you edit the dataset on the website and save the record, a value is assigned to previously blank select fields.
The issue is that we don't support the concept of "no selection" on the website and thus the first value in the select field is automatically selected.
Description of the change
I added an empty option to all select fields. I chose to added it to all fields instead of only the non-required ones to enforce that users actually select a value for required fields instead of just using the option selected by default.
I also updated to the latest kombu version because the build on Travis would fail otherwise.
How someone else can test the change
Create a new project using this form. You'll see in the form that parties have different select fields:
ethnicity is required and has a default value
physical_status is not required and has a default value
age_range is not required and does not a default value
profession is required and does not a default value
Create a project using the form, then create a party. When submitting the form check for the following conditions:
All fields that have a default value should have the default value selected.
All fields that do not have a default value should default to the empty selection.
The form should not submit if a required field is left empty.
After you successfully created the party, go and edit the party.
All fields where you selected a value before should have that value selected.
All empty fields that have a default value should have the default value selected.
All empty fields that do not have a default value should default to the empty selection.
The form should not submit if a required field is left empty.
When should this PR be merged
This is somewhat urgent to one partner so we need to get it through quickly.
Risks
None
Follow-up actions
None
Checklist (for reviewing)
General
Is this PR explained thoroughly? All code changes must be accounted for in the PR description.
[ ] Review 1
[ ] Review 2
Is the PR labeled correctly? It should have the migration label if a new migration is added.
[ ] Review 1
[ ] Review 2
Is the risk level assessment sufficient? The risks section should contain all risks that might be introduced with the PR and which actions we need to take to mitigate these risks. Possible risks are database migrations, new libraries that need to be installed or changes to deployment scripts.
[ ] Review 1
[ ] Review 2
Functionality
Are all requirements met? Compare implemented functionality with the requirements specification.
[ ] Review 1
[ ] Review 2
Does the UI work as expected? There should be no Javascript errors in the console; all resources should load. There should be no unexpected errors. Deliberately try to break the feature to find out if there are corner cases that are not handled.
[ ] Review 1
[ ] Review 2
Code
Do you fully understand the introduced changes to the code? If not ask for clarification, it might uncover ways to solve a problem in a more elegant and efficient way.
[ ] Review 1
[ ] Review 2
Does the PR introduce any inefficient database requests? Use the debug server to check for duplicate requests.
[ ] Review 1
[ ] Review 2
Are all necessary strings marked for translation? All strings that are exposed to users via the UI must be marked for translation.
[ ] Review 1
[ ] Review 2
Is the code documented sufficiently? Large and complex classes, functions or methods must be annotated with comments following our code-style guidelines.
[ ] Review 1
[ ] Review 2
Has the scalability of this change been evaluated?
[ ] Review 1
[ ] Review 2
Is there a maintenance plan in place?
[ ] Review 1
[ ] Review 2
Tests
Are there sufficient test cases? Ensure that all components are tested individually; models, forms, and serializers should be tested in isolation even if a test for a view covers these components.
[ ] Review 1
[ ] Review 2
If this is a bug fix, are tests for the issue in place? There must be a test case for the bug to ensure the issue won’t regress. Make sure that the tests break without the new code to fix the issue.
[ ] Review 1
[ ] Review 2
If this is a new feature or a significant change to an existing feature? has the manual testing spreadsheet been updated with instructions for manual testing?
[ ] Review 1
[ ] Review 2
Security
Confirm this PR doesn't commit any keys, passwords, tokens, usernames, or other secrets.
[ ] Review 1
[ ] Review 2
Are all UI and API inputs run through forms or serializers?
[ ] Review 1
[ ] Review 2
Are all external inputs validated and sanitized appropriately?
[ ] Review 1
[ ] Review 2
Does all branching logic have a default case?
[ ] Review 1
[ ] Review 2
Does this solution handle outliers and edge cases gracefully?
[ ] Review 1
[ ] Review 2
Are all external communications secured and restricted to SSL?
[ ] Review 1
[ ] Review 2
Documentation
Are changes to the UI documented in the platform docs? If this PR introduces new platform site functionality or changes existing ones, the changes must be documented in the Cadasta Platform Documentation.
[ ] Review 1
[ ] Review 2
Are changes to the API documented in the API docs? If this PR introduces new API functionality or changes existing ones, the changes must be documented in the API docs.
[ ] Review 1
[ ] Review 2
Are reusable components documented? If this PR introduces components that are relevant to other developers (for instance a mixin for a view or a generic form) they should be documented in the Wiki.
Proposed changes in this pull request
Why I made this change
If you have a non-required select field in a questionnaire, it is possible to leave that field blank in ODK.
If you edit the dataset on the website and save the record, a value is assigned to previously blank select fields.
The issue is that we don't support the concept of "no selection" on the website and thus the first value in the select field is automatically selected.
Description of the change
I added an empty option to all select fields. I chose to added it to all fields instead of only the non-required ones to enforce that users actually select a value for required fields instead of just using the option selected by default.
I also updated to the latest kombu version because the build on Travis would fail otherwise.
How someone else can test the change
Create a new project using this form. You'll see in the form that parties have different select fields:
ethnicityis required and has a default valuephysical_statusis not required and has a default valueage_rangeis not required and does not a default valueprofessionis required and does not a default valueCreate a project using the form, then create a party. When submitting the form check for the following conditions:
After you successfully created the party, go and edit the party.
When should this PR be merged
This is somewhat urgent to one partner so we need to get it through quickly.
Risks
None
Follow-up actions
None
Checklist (for reviewing)
General
Is this PR explained thoroughly? All code changes must be accounted for in the PR description.
Is the PR labeled correctly? It should have the
migrationlabel if a new migration is added.Is the risk level assessment sufficient? The risks section should contain all risks that might be introduced with the PR and which actions we need to take to mitigate these risks. Possible risks are database migrations, new libraries that need to be installed or changes to deployment scripts.
Functionality
Are all requirements met? Compare implemented functionality with the requirements specification.
Does the UI work as expected? There should be no Javascript errors in the console; all resources should load. There should be no unexpected errors. Deliberately try to break the feature to find out if there are corner cases that are not handled.
Code
Do you fully understand the introduced changes to the code? If not ask for clarification, it might uncover ways to solve a problem in a more elegant and efficient way.
Does the PR introduce any inefficient database requests? Use the debug server to check for duplicate requests.
Are all necessary strings marked for translation? All strings that are exposed to users via the UI must be marked for translation.
Is the code documented sufficiently? Large and complex classes, functions or methods must be annotated with comments following our code-style guidelines.
Has the scalability of this change been evaluated?
Is there a maintenance plan in place?
Tests
Are there sufficient test cases? Ensure that all components are tested individually; models, forms, and serializers should be tested in isolation even if a test for a view covers these components.
If this is a bug fix, are tests for the issue in place? There must be a test case for the bug to ensure the issue won’t regress. Make sure that the tests break without the new code to fix the issue.
If this is a new feature or a significant change to an existing feature? has the manual testing spreadsheet been updated with instructions for manual testing?
Security
Confirm this PR doesn't commit any keys, passwords, tokens, usernames, or other secrets.
Are all UI and API inputs run through forms or serializers?
Are all external inputs validated and sanitized appropriately?
Does all branching logic have a default case?
Does this solution handle outliers and edge cases gracefully?
Are all external communications secured and restricted to SSL?
Documentation
Are changes to the UI documented in the platform docs? If this PR introduces new platform site functionality or changes existing ones, the changes must be documented in the Cadasta Platform Documentation.
Are changes to the API documented in the API docs? If this PR introduces new API functionality or changes existing ones, the changes must be documented in the API docs.
Are reusable components documented? If this PR introduces components that are relevant to other developers (for instance a mixin for a view or a generic form) they should be documented in the Wiki.