LG-10228: Updated F/T unlock content for error states

[jmdembe]

🎫 Ticket

LG-10228: Updated F/T unlock content for error states

🛠 Summary of changes

This PR improves messaging for when a user does not complete setup for F/T unlock.

📜 Testing Plan

Scenario 1: User sets up a new account and fails setup

1. Follow the instructions to set up an account
2. Choose "Face or touch unlock" as your authentication method
3. Choose a nickname for the device
4. When prompted, click "Cancel" to make the setup fail
5. Observe the error banner with "We were unable to add face or touch unlock. Please try again or choose another method" text.

Scenario 2: Failed setup for an account already has face/touch unlock on same device

1. Follow the instructions to create an account
2. Set up an account with Face/Touch unlock as the authentication method
3. Select "Add Face or Touch Unlock"
4. Follow the instructions to choose a nickname for the device
5. When prompted, make the setup fail by clicking "Cancel"
6. Observe the error banner that says "Face or touch unlock is already registered on this device. Please try adding another authentication method.

Scenario 3: User with an existing account fails Face/Touch unlock setup

1. Follow the instructions to set up an account
2. Choose an authentication method except Face/Touch unlock
3. Follow instructions to complete the setup
4. On the account page, select "Add Face or Touch unlock
5. Follow instructions to choose a nickname for the device
6. When prompted, make the setup fail by clicking "Cancel"
7. Observe the error banner that says ""We were unable to add face or touch unlock. Please try again or choose another method" text. Note that this banner does not have a hyperlink to choose another method.

👀 Screenshots

Before	Before	Before

After	After	After

[aduth]

Couple minor comments on specs, but otherwise LGTM 👍

[aduth]

Can we use the URL helper here, so that it doesn't fall out of sync with the route definition?

Suggested change

	'/authentication_methods_setup',
	authentication_methods_setup_path,

[jmdembe]

This is something that I am finding tricky to work through. I was using the hard-coded to affirm that the test would pass and then make it in sync. I just don't know which avenue to go down at this point.

With both include ActionView::Helpers::UrlHelper and include Rails.application.routes.url_helpers added to the file, I would get an undefined local variable or method 'controller' error.

Then, if I took out both include helpers, I would get an undefined local variable or method 'authentication_methods_setup_path'

Thoughts?

[aduth]

Hm, very strange, the error message isn't particularly helpful either.

I was able to get a more useful error stack trace by adding a rescue block with a binding.pry, which points back to this being related to url_options.

=> ["/ruby/gems/3.2.0/gems/rspec-expectations-3.12.3/lib/rspec/matchers.rb:968:in `method_missing'",
 "/ruby/gems/3.2.0/gems/rspec-core-3.12.2/lib/rspec/core/example_group.rb:767:in `method_missing'",
 "/ruby/gems/3.2.0/gems/actionview-7.0.5.1/lib/action_view/routing_url_for.rb:125:in `url_options'",
 "/ruby/gems/3.2.0/gems/actionpack-7.0.5.1/lib/action_dispatch/routing/route_set.rb:263:in `call'",
 "/ruby/gems/3.2.0/gems/actionpack-7.0.5.1/lib/action_dispatch/routing/route_set.rb:327:in `block in define_url_helper'",
 "/identity-idp/spec/forms/webauthn_visit_form_spec.rb:106:in `block (5 levels) in <top (required)>'",
...

This code: https://github.com/rails/rails/blob/2884d00/actionview/lib/action_view/routing_url_for.rb#L125

Out of a hunch, I added url_options as a let memoized variable to get it "in scope", and... that seemed enough to get it to pass? 🤷

Passing diff:

diff --git a/spec/forms/webauthn_visit_form_spec.rb b/spec/forms/webauthn_visit_form_spec.rb
index a34241728..c2d32412e 100644
--- a/spec/forms/webauthn_visit_form_spec.rb
+++ b/spec/forms/webauthn_visit_form_spec.rb
@@ -4,4 +4,6 @@ RSpec.describe WebauthnVisitForm do
   include ActionView::Helpers::UrlHelper
+  include Rails.application.routes.url_helpers
 
   let(:user) { build(:user) }
+  let(:url_options) { {} }
   let(:subject) do
@@ -9,3 +11,3 @@ RSpec.describe WebauthnVisitForm do
       user: user,
-      url_options: {},
+      url_options:,
       in_mfa_selection_flow: true,
@@ -104,3 +106,3 @@ RSpec.describe WebauthnVisitForm do
               I18n.t('errors.webauthn_platform_setup.choose_another_method'),
-              '/authentication_methods_setup',
+              authentication_methods_setup_path,
             ),