PromucFlow_constructor/app/client/src/utils/PropertyControlRegistry.tsx

94 lines
2.9 KiB
TypeScript
Raw Normal View History

import React from "react";
import PropertyControlFactory from "./PropertyControlFactory";
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 { PropertyControlPropsType } from "components/propertyControls";
import { PropertyControls } from "components/propertyControls";
import type { ControlProps } from "components/propertyControls/BaseControl";
import type BaseControl from "components/propertyControls/BaseControl";
import type { InteractionAnalyticsEventDetail } from "./AppsmithUtils";
import {
interactionAnalyticsEvent,
INTERACTION_ANALYTICS_EVENT,
} from "./AppsmithUtils";
function withAnalytics(WrappedControl: typeof BaseControl) {
return class AnalyticsHOC extends React.PureComponent<ControlProps> {
// TODO: Fix this the next time the file is edited
// eslint-disable-next-line @typescript-eslint/no-explicit-any
containerRef = React.createRef<any>();
constructor(props: ControlProps) {
super(props);
}
componentDidMount() {
this.containerRef.current?.addEventListener(
INTERACTION_ANALYTICS_EVENT,
this.handleKbdEvent,
);
}
componentWillUnmount() {
this.containerRef.current?.removeEventListener(
INTERACTION_ANALYTICS_EVENT,
this.handleKbdEvent,
);
}
handleKbdEvent = (e: Event) => {
const event = e as CustomEvent<InteractionAnalyticsEventDetail>;
if (!event.detail?.propertyName) {
e.stopPropagation();
this.containerRef.current?.dispatchEvent(
interactionAnalyticsEvent({
key: event.detail.key,
propertyType: AnalyticsHOC.getControlType(),
propertyName: this.props.propertyName,
widgetType: this.props.widgetProperties.type,
}),
);
}
};
static getControlType() {
return WrappedControl.getControlType();
}
render() {
return (
<div ref={this.containerRef}>
<WrappedControl {...this.props} />
</div>
);
}
};
}
class PropertyControlRegistry {
static registerPropertyControlBuilders() {
Object.values(PropertyControls).forEach(
(Control: typeof BaseControl & { getControlType: () => string }) => {
const ControlWithAnalytics = withAnalytics(Control);
const controlType = ControlWithAnalytics.getControlType();
PropertyControlFactory.registerControlBuilder(
controlType,
{
buildPropertyControl(
controlProps: PropertyControlPropsType,
): JSX.Element {
return <ControlWithAnalytics {...controlProps} />;
},
},
chore: [one click binding] allow switching between js mode and non js mode on property control (#24355) ## Description Now, on table data property of Table widget, we can switch between js mode and non js mode when there is a value. #### PR fixes following issue(s) Fixes https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/24354 #### Media > A video or a GIF is preferred. when using Loom, don’t embed because it looks like it’s a GIF. instead, just link to the video > > #### Type of change > Please delete options that are not relevant. - Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue) - New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality) - Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected) - Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception) - This change requires a documentation update > > > ## Testing > #### How Has This Been Tested? > Please describe the tests that you ran to verify your changes. Also list any relevant details for your test configuration. > Delete anything that is not relevant - [x] Manual - [ ] Jest - [x] Cypress > > #### 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 - [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: - [ ] [Speedbreak features](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Test-plan-implementation#speedbreaker-features-to-consider-for-every-change) have been covered - [ ] Test plan covers all impacted features and [areas of interest](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans/_edit#areas-of-interest) - [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by project stakeholders and other QA members - [ ] Manually tested functionality on DP - [ ] We had an implementation alignment call with stakeholders post QA Round 2 - [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by SDET/manual QA - [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after Cypress tests were reviewed - [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after JUnit tests were reviewed
2023-06-16 09:16:56 +00:00
{
canDisplayValueInUI: Control.canDisplayValueInUI,
shouldValidateValueOnDynamicPropertyOff:
Control.shouldValidateValueOnDynamicPropertyOff,
},
Control.getInputComputedValue,
);
},
);
}
}
export default PropertyControlRegistry;