Use heavier selector for select2

[oeN]

See Issue #1996

[gmacdougall]

Looks like a reasonable change. We have a test failure here that looks related.

I'd also like to see a better commit description.

Thanks for looking in to this!

[oeN]

Thank you! I'm looking to the failure right now.

[oeN]

@gmacdougall I've tried but I was unable to replicate the error, it seems that the failure spec fails randomly (at least in my environment). Is it possible? Do you know if someone has a problem like this?

With ruby 2.4.0 I was unable to even run the spec because of poltergeist.
With ruby 2.3.0 I'm able to run the spec but it fails randomly most of times because of poltergeist with errors like:

• Request to 'http:https://127.0.0.1:62594/admin' failed to reach server, check DNS and/or server status
• Timed out with the following resources still waiting .....

And sometimes the spec pass without problems. Do you have any advice to solve this and get the PR merged?

Thank you!!

[graygilmore]

Should we be using an ID or name? That's what select2/select2#2750 (comment) suggests.

Should allow us to clean up these selectors even more.

[oeN]

Yes, I have opted for the name selector select instead of the ID to solve this problem quickly and with the minimum amount of code.

[frankie-loves-jesus]

Wouldn't it be better if we switched to https://github.com/selectize/selectize.js altogether?

[jhawthorn]

There are some good suggestions here, but I think they're all outside the scope of fixing this immediate issue. Many extensions use <select class="select2">, so we'll need that to continue working for the time-being.

I'd love to see us move away from that, to bootstrap's custom-select or similar, but IMO this is a good fix to an immediate issue.

[graygilmore]

There are some good suggestions here, but I think they're all outside the scope of fixing this immediate issue. Many extensions use <select class="select2">, so we'll need that to continue working for the time-being.

Sounds good! 👍

It wasn't fully clear to me why this was necessary so I pulled stuff down and tested things out. I think improving the commit message here will go a long way in clarifying things for future-us.

[tvdeyen]

I think improving the commit message here will go a long way in clarifying things for future-us.

Yes, please add some more information in the commit message so future readers know why we made this.

Thanks for the contribution

[oeN]

@tvdeyen I've tried to add the information on the commit, let me know if is fine. I thought I had to stay in the character limit 😄

[tvdeyen]

Perfect. Thanks!

[tvdeyen]

I thought I had to stay in the character limit

This character only applies to the first sentence. The description body (separated by a new line) can and should be as long as you need to explain the rational behind your changes.

A very good read on this topic is: https://chris.beams.io/posts/git-commit/