Skip to content

BV250 — Manage Voters / Add Voters

Sheet rows still needed. BV250 was allocated as the next free family after BV240 (preliminary-results disclaimer) — it is not yet a row in the test-case sheet. Paste-ready: BV250-sheet-rows.tsv. If it collides with an existing row, renumber here and in the tsv together.

Scope

Everything on the Manage Voters screen of a closed-list election and the Adding Voters dialog it opens: the access radios and what locks them, the roll submission path (typed and CSV), the duplicate handling, and the mobile behaviour of the dialog itself.

Out of scope: email invitations and the Draft Email Blast (SendEmailDialog), voter authentication at ballot time, and anything about how ballots are counted.

Status for all 11: Ready to run. Nothing here waits on an unmerged feature. Two of them (BV250a, BV250b) are expected to fail today and are written as baseline captures — see the column below.

Test elections needed (3 configurations)

Cfg State Voter access Identification Used by
V1 draft closed (pre-defined list = Yes) Admin-managed voter IDs a, b, c, d, e, g, h, i, j, k
V2 draft closed BetterVoting-managed voter IDs (email) b (email arm), f
V3 finalized / open closed, admin-managed, roll already populated — e (the non-draft arm)

Notes on setup:

  • Adding the first voter is a one-way door on a non-draft election. Both radio groups disable on state !== 'draft' || rolls.length > 0 (ViewElectionRolls.tsx:119, :145), and CLEAR VOTER LIST only exists while the election is a draft. So V1 is consumed by any case that adds a voter — make a fresh draft per run, or clear the roll between cases.
  • Method, candidates and races are irrelevant to every case here. Use the smallest template.
  • BV250h and BV250i are the mobile cases and need a real narrow viewport: a phone, or devtools at 360 x 780 with touch emulation. A desktop window narrowed to 360 px does not reproduce the auto-hiding overlay scrollbar that made the reporter's session confusing.
  • Test accounts: the sheet's testing-credentials tab, not here.

Tier 1 — the duplicate path (the two that fail today)

BV250a — a voter-ID list of two rows is reported as duplicate emails

Cfg: V1 · Automate: y · Expect: FAIL today

  1. On Manage Voters, confirm Yes to a pre-defined voter list and Admin-managed voter IDs. Leave the Email checkbox unticked.
  2. ADD VOTERS.
  3. Type two distinct voter IDs, one per row: 
    alpha
bravo
  4. SUBMIT.

Expected: the two voters are added. No prompt.

Actual today: "You entered duplicate emails, which is not supported. Would you like us to remove duplicates?" — naming a field that is not in use and contains nothing. Root cause: both duplicatesExist and removeDuplicates key on roll.email, which is undefined for every row in this mode, so all rows collide on "".

→ full page: BV250a-voter-id-list-flagged-as-duplicate-emails.md

BV250b — answering YES adds one voter and discards the rest, silently

Cfg: V1 · Automate: y · Expect: FAIL today

  1. As BV250a, but submit three distinct IDs and note the roll count before you start.
  2. Answer YES to the duplicate prompt.
  3. Count the roll.

Expected: three voters added; if the tool really did remove duplicates it says how many.

Actual today: the roll grows by one. Two rows are dropped with no message and no count. Observed in the reporter's video as 2 → 3 → 4 → 5 across submissions of 3, 2 and 1 rows.

Second arm (V2, email mode): the same three-row submission with distinct emails is expected to pass — the key is correct there. Run both arms; the contrast is the diagnosis.

→ full page: BV250b-duplicate-removal-discards-rows.md

BV250c — answering NO adds nothing and says nothing

Cfg: V1 · Automate: y

→ full page: BV250c-answering-no-adds-nothing.md

  1. As BV250a. Answer NO.
  2. Look at the roll and at the dialog.

Expected: either the voters are added, or the admin is told plainly that nothing was added and why.

Predicted actual (from source, AddElectionRoll.tsx:99): onSubmit returns without posting; the dialog stays open with the text still in it and no message. So the two answers on offer are "add one voter" and "add none". Marked as a prediction — confirm in the browser.

BV250d — a genuinely duplicated voter ID is caught

Cfg: V1 · Automate: y

→ full page: BV250d-genuine-duplicate-is-caught.md

Submit alpha / bravo / alpha. Expected: the prompt fires (it should, here), and YES adds two voters. This is the case that has to keep passing after the key is fixed — it is the reason the check exists.

Tier 2 — input format and column handling

BV250e — the roll table reflects exactly what was submitted

Cfg: V1 then V3 · Automate: y

→ full page: BV250e-roll-table-reflects-submission.md

Submit a known list, then read the Voters table back. Expected: same count, same IDs, all rows Not Voted. On V3 (finalized) additionally confirm the access radios are disabled and CLEAR VOTER LIST is absent — the lock is only undoable in draft.

BV250f — two ticked columns require a comma per row

Cfg: V2 · Automate: y

→ full page: BV250f-two-columns-require-a-comma.md

Tick both Voter ID and Email, then submit a row with no comma. Expected: the error names the format. Actual today: the snackbar reads Incorrect number of columns: <row> and the dialog's own instruction line only says "(1 voter per row, no spaces)", never that the row is comma-separated. Assert on the requirement (the admin can tell what to type next), not on the literal string.

BV250g — CSV import takes the same path

Cfg: V1 · Automate: n

→ full page: BV250g-csv-import-takes-the-same-path.md

Load a CSV with header voter_id and three distinct rows. Expected: three voters. Predicted actual: the same duplicate prompt and the same one-row outcome — handleLoadCsv (:137, :146) calls the identical pair of functions. Prediction; confirm. Also check the two documented guards: a bad header (Invalid headers) and a non-text file (Invalid data type) both alert() rather than using the snackbar, which is inconsistent with every other error on this screen.

Tier 3 — the dialog on a phone (this is #1512's territory)

BV250h — the Adding Voters dialog scrolls itself, not the page

Cfg: V1, narrow viewport · Automate: n

→ full page: BV250h-add-voters-dialog-scrolls-itself.md

  1. Open ADD VOTERS on a 360 px-wide viewport.
  2. Note where the page behind the modal is scrolled to.
  3. Scroll inside the dialog; press SUBMIT with the field empty.

Expected: any feedback appears without the admin hunting for it, and the page behind the modal does not move.

Actual today: the background does move (visible in the reporter's video at 18–20 s). Note this dialog has no scroll-to-error of its own — its failures go to a snackbar at the bottom of the viewport, which can land over the dialog's own buttons. So a fix to scrollToElement for #1512 does not fix this screen; check both.

BV250i — the race dialog scrolls to its error, on a phone

Cfg: any draft election, narrow viewport · Automate: n · Expect: FAIL today

→ full page: BV250i-race-dialog-scrolls-to-its-error.md

The case that matches #1512's written steps. Add a race, give it a title and one candidate only, press SAVE.

Expected: the dialog scrolls its own content so "Must have at least 2 candidates" is visible. Actual today: the dialog does not move; the page behind it does. → issues/1512-scroll-save-review.md

BV250j — the confirm dialog is never blank

Cfg: V1, narrow viewport or a throttled CPU · Automate: n

→ full page: BV250j-confirm-dialog-is-never-blank.md

Trigger any confirm on this screen (CLEAR VOTER LIST is the easiest) and watch it close.

Expected: the box carries its text and its own button labels for as long as it is on screen. Actual today: ConfirmationDialogProvider.tsx:46 clears title, message and both labels synchronously with isOpen: false, so the fade-out renders an empty box with the default CANCEL / SUBMIT labels. Caught three times in a 40-second recording on a mid-range Android. Cosmetic, but it is why a tester's screenshot can show a confirm dialog with nothing in it.

The blank confirm dialog, mid-close

BV250k — the voter table fits the viewport

Cfg: V1 with 3+ voters, narrow viewport · Automate: n

→ full page: BV250k-voter-table-fits-the-viewport.md

Expected: Voter ID / Email / Has Voted and the Rows per page … 1–N of N footer are all reachable without horizontal page scrolling. Actual today: the table is clipped at the right edge with its own horizontal scrollbar and the footer runs off-screen. Layout only. Check for a duplicate before filing — plausibly already covered by #704 or #1170.

Which of these actually catch bugs

BV250a and BV250b (the duplicate key — silent data loss, unfiled), BV250c (the NO branch), BV250g (the CSV twin of the same bug), BV250i (#1512 as written). The other six are confirmation and boundary.

BPML

The Use Case List has no entry for this flow. Suggested rows, in the order an admin meets them:

Use case Actor Trigger Notes
Restrict an election to a pre-defined voter list Election admin Manage Voters One-way door once a voter exists; undoable only in draft
Choose voter identification (BV-managed vs admin-managed IDs) Election admin Manage Voters Locks with the above
Add voters to the roll (typed) Election admin ADD VOTERS The BV250a/b failure lives here
Add voters to the roll (CSV import) Election admin ADD VOTERS Same code path, different entry
Clear the voter list Election admin CLEAR VOTER LIST Draft only; the unlock mechanism
Review roll and voting status Election admin Voters table Has Voted column
Invite voters by email Election admin DRAFT EMAIL BLAST Email mode only — out of BV250's scope, own family

Open questions

  1. Which screen is #1512 for? Its steps and its video disagree (race dialog vs Adding Voters). Needs a call from whoever picks it up.
  2. Should a partial roll submission be possible at all? Today YES posts a silently truncated list. Rejecting the whole submission and telling the admin which rows collided is arguably the safer contract for a voter roll — worth asking before the fix is written, because it changes it.
  3. Should Add Voters be reachable at all once the election is finalized? It is, and it still adds voters — but the settings it locks can no longer be unlocked. Deliberate, or a gap?