Fix Rubocop Rails/NegateInclude issues

[cyrillefr]

What? Why?

• Contributes to Fix Rubocop Rails issues #11482
• Closes Rubocop Rails/NegateInclude #12338

Fixes one of many rubocop issues

• cop class: RuboCop::Cop::Rails::NegateInclude
• idea: replacing !array.include?(2) with array.exclude?(2)
• .rubocop_todo.yml updated

What should we test?

Nothing: the rubocop should raise no offenses when checking linters at Integration.

Release notes

Changelog Category (reviewers may add a label for the release notes):

• User facing changes
• API changes (V0, V1, DFC or Webhook)
• Technical changes only
• Feature toggled

The title of the pull request will be included in the release notes.

Dependencies

Documentation updates

[cyrillefr]

Hello @dacook or @sigmundpetersen ,

could someone relaunch checks, there is a strange error that do not show up locally.
Thanks :)

[sigmundpetersen]

Hey @cyrillefr I have run the spec 10 times, consistently failing.
It really looks like the flaky spec #10027 that somehow got consistent as part of this PR 🤷
Maybe @filipefurtad0 or @openfoodfoundation/core-devs have some insight

[cyrillefr]

Really weird this kind of behaviour that arise on my PR (why me :))
I have looked at the code and there was a comment to switch from JS to Capybara.
So, I have changed the code, it works locally. Maybe it going to solve the problem.
And that is a good use case to try to solve flaky # 10027

[sigmundpetersen]

Yay, looks good @cyrillefr 🎉
That's even better, fixing a flaky spec at the same time 😄
Let's wait for the devs' review 👍

[cyrillefr]

So, is this luck or what ?
Maybe something have changed overnight in testing env, or may the code change.

Hello @sigmundpetersen ,
I don't know if what I have done is the real solution, may be some additional testing to be sure ?
Also, there are 2 issues in one PR here, it is a bit untidy.
Should I leave(close) this PR and make a new one to address the flaky and a new tidy one for the rubocop issue ?

[cyrillefr]

Ah, @sigmundpetersen , sorry, did not see your reply.

[sigmundpetersen]

I think everything is fine @cyrillefr !
We can just close the flaky issue if the devs think this will close it 👍

[chahmedejaz]

• That's great to incorporate the latest recommended method.
• By looking at the flaky spec, we are not getting the element bycheckbox_id
• Like the proposed changes, I think it's worth trying to use the built-in capybara method as opposed to running the JS script for the purpose
• Let's hope for the best now :)

[chahmedejaz]

Great work! 🎉

[rioug]

Nice one, thanks @cyrillefr 🙏

[mkllnk]

Great, thanks!

I have seen problematic corrections of this cop in the past because it can't know the type of object at run time but these fixes seem all good. 👍

I think that we can merge this straight away.