PromucFlow_constructor/app/client/src/actions/appSettingsPaneActions.ts

29 lines
749 B
TypeScript
Raw Normal View History

import { ReduxActionTypes } from "@appsmith/constants/ReduxActionConstants";
feat: Improved App Navigation (#19312) ## TL;DR A new revamped experience for navigation for Appsmith users. ## Description Introduces new navigation styles with better default navigation - Top (Stacked), a variant for Top (Inline), and a collapsible Sidebar. Configure your app's navigation by navigating to the navigation settings tab inside the app settings pane and observe how your app with the selected navigation settings will look side by side as you change them. This PR pushes the v1 for EPIC #17766. Fixes #19157 Fixes #19158 Fixes #19174 Fixes #19173 Fixes #19160 Fixes #20712 Fixes #19161 Fixes #20554 Fixes #20938 Fixes #21129 ## Media <video src="https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/22471214/227187245-84e4e3fa-18e4-4690-8237-cfce29f432e5.mp4"></video> ## Type of change - New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality) - This change requires a documentation update ## How Has This Been Tested? - Manual - Cypress ### Test Plan https://www.notion.so/appsmith/Test-Plan-a7883ae4980d470690de5c62a41dd168 ### Issues raised during DP testing https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Kocq8h1H3EXlbqDgiNruzBr9MeNPyY26zct8IWYEY40/edit#gid=0 ## Checklist: ### Dev activity - [x] My code follows the style guidelines of this project - [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code - [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas - [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation - [x] My changes generate no new warnings - [x] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works - [x] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes - [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag ### QA activity: - [ ] Test plan has been approved by relevant developers - [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by QA - [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by either SDET or manual QA - [ ] Organized project review call with relevant stakeholders after Round 1/2 of QA - [ ] Added Test Plan Approved label after reveiwing all Cypress test --------- Co-authored-by: Pawan Kumar <pawan@appsmith.com>
2023-03-23 11:41:58 +00:00
import type {
AppSettingsPaneContext,
AppSettingsPaneReduxState,
} from "reducers/uiReducers/appSettingsPaneReducer";
chore: upgrade to prettier v2 + enforce import types (#21013)Co-authored-by: Satish Gandham <hello@satishgandham.com> Co-authored-by: Satish Gandham <satish.iitg@gmail.com> ## Description This PR upgrades Prettier to v2 + enforces TypeScript’s [`import type`](https://www.typescriptlang.org/docs/handbook/release-notes/typescript-3-8.html#type-only-imports-and-export) syntax where applicable. It’s submitted as a separate PR so we can merge it easily. As a part of this PR, we reformat the codebase heavily: - add `import type` everywhere where it’s required, and - re-format the code to account for Prettier 2’s breaking changes: https://prettier.io/blog/2020/03/21/2.0.0.html#breaking-changes This PR is submitted against `release` to make sure all new code by team members will adhere to new formatting standards, and we’ll have fewer conflicts when merging `bundle-optimizations` into `release`. (I’ll merge `release` back into `bundle-optimizations` once this PR is merged.) ### Why is this needed? This PR is needed because, for the Lodash optimization from https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/commit/7cbb12af886621256224be0c93e6a465dd710ad3, we need to use `import type`. Otherwise, `babel-plugin-lodash` complains that `LoDashStatic` is not a lodash function. However, just using `import type` in the current codebase will give you this: <img width="962" alt="Screenshot 2023-03-08 at 17 45 59" src="https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/2953267/223775744-407afa0c-e8b9-44a1-90f9-b879348da57f.png"> That’s because Prettier 1 can’t parse `import type` at all. To parse it, we need to upgrade to Prettier 2. ### Why enforce `import type`? Apart from just enabling `import type` support, this PR enforces specifying `import type` everywhere it’s needed. (Developers will get immediate TypeScript and ESLint errors when they forget to do so.) I’m doing this because I believe `import type` improves DX and makes refactorings easier. Let’s say you had a few imports like below. Can you tell which of these imports will increase the bundle size? (Tip: it’s not all of them!) ```ts // app/client/src/workers/Linting/utils.ts import { Position } from "codemirror"; import { LintError as JSHintError, LintOptions } from "jshint"; import { get, isEmpty, isNumber, keys, last, set } from "lodash"; ``` It’s pretty hard, right? What about now? ```ts // app/client/src/workers/Linting/utils.ts import type { Position } from "codemirror"; import type { LintError as JSHintError, LintOptions } from "jshint"; import { get, isEmpty, isNumber, keys, last, set } from "lodash"; ``` Now, it’s clear that only `lodash` will be bundled. This helps developers to see which imports are problematic, but it _also_ helps with refactorings. Now, if you want to see where `codemirror` is bundled, you can just grep for `import \{.*\} from "codemirror"` – and you won’t get any type-only imports. This also helps (some) bundlers. Upon transpiling, TypeScript erases type-only imports completely. In some environment (not ours), this makes the bundle smaller, as the bundler doesn’t need to bundle type-only imports anymore. ## Type of change - Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception) ## How Has This Been Tested? This was tested to not break the build. ### Test Plan > Add Testsmith test cases links that relate to this PR ### Issues raised during DP testing > Link issues raised during DP testing for better visiblity and tracking (copy link from comments dropped on this PR) ## Checklist: ### Dev activity - [x] My code follows the style guidelines of this project - [ ] I have performed a self-review of my own code - [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas - [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation - [x] My changes generate no new warnings - [ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works - [ ] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes - [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag ### QA activity: - [ ] Test plan has been approved by relevant developers - [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by QA - [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by either SDET or manual QA - [ ] Organized project review call with relevant stakeholders after Round 1/2 of QA - [ ] Added Test Plan Approved label after reveiwing all Cypress test --------- Co-authored-by: Satish Gandham <hello@satishgandham.com> Co-authored-by: Satish Gandham <satish.iitg@gmail.com>
2023-03-16 11:41:47 +00:00
import type { Action } from "redux";
2022-12-02 05:49:51 +00:00
export const openAppSettingsPaneAction = (context?: AppSettingsPaneContext) => {
return {
type: ReduxActionTypes.OPEN_APP_SETTINGS_PANE,
payload: context,
};
};
export const closeAppSettingsPaneAction = (): Action => {
return {
type: ReduxActionTypes.CLOSE_APP_SETTINGS_PANE,
};
};
feat: Improved App Navigation (#19312) ## TL;DR A new revamped experience for navigation for Appsmith users. ## Description Introduces new navigation styles with better default navigation - Top (Stacked), a variant for Top (Inline), and a collapsible Sidebar. Configure your app's navigation by navigating to the navigation settings tab inside the app settings pane and observe how your app with the selected navigation settings will look side by side as you change them. This PR pushes the v1 for EPIC #17766. Fixes #19157 Fixes #19158 Fixes #19174 Fixes #19173 Fixes #19160 Fixes #20712 Fixes #19161 Fixes #20554 Fixes #20938 Fixes #21129 ## Media <video src="https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/22471214/227187245-84e4e3fa-18e4-4690-8237-cfce29f432e5.mp4"></video> ## Type of change - New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality) - This change requires a documentation update ## How Has This Been Tested? - Manual - Cypress ### Test Plan https://www.notion.so/appsmith/Test-Plan-a7883ae4980d470690de5c62a41dd168 ### Issues raised during DP testing https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Kocq8h1H3EXlbqDgiNruzBr9MeNPyY26zct8IWYEY40/edit#gid=0 ## Checklist: ### Dev activity - [x] My code follows the style guidelines of this project - [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code - [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas - [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation - [x] My changes generate no new warnings - [x] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works - [x] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes - [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag ### QA activity: - [ ] Test plan has been approved by relevant developers - [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by QA - [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by either SDET or manual QA - [ ] Organized project review call with relevant stakeholders after Round 1/2 of QA - [ ] Added Test Plan Approved label after reveiwing all Cypress test --------- Co-authored-by: Pawan Kumar <pawan@appsmith.com>
2023-03-23 11:41:58 +00:00
export const updateAppSettingsPaneSelectedTabAction = (
payload: AppSettingsPaneReduxState,
) => {
return {
type: ReduxActionTypes.UPDATE_APP_SETTINGS_PANE_SELECTED_TAB,
payload: payload,
};
};