PromucFlow_constructor/app/client/src/utils/NavigationSelector/WidgetChildren.ts

35 lines
1.2 KiB
TypeScript
Raw Normal View History

chore: separated tree type into common file to be extended on EE (#27812) ## Description UnEvalTree, dataTree and configTree's entities needs to be extended on EE to accommodate module inputs and different types of modules hence the separation. I have added few more sanity checks in the existing code which were throwing errors/warning on EE. #### PR fixes following issue(s) Fixes # (issue number) #### 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 - Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception) > > > ## 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 - [ ] Manual - [ ] JUnit - [ ] Jest - [ ] 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 - [ ] 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 - [ ] 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: - [ ] [Speedbreak features](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#speedbreakers-) have been covered - [ ] Test plan covers all impacted features and [areas of interest](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#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
2023-10-10 12:32:17 +00:00
import type { WidgetEntity } from "@appsmith/entities/DataTree/types";
import type { DataTree } from "entities/DataTree/dataTreeTypes";
chore: query module evaluation (#27660) > Pull Request Template > > Use this template to quickly create a well written pull request. Delete all quotes before creating the pull request. > ## Description There are multiple refactors and split for query module's creator flow changes which involves module input -- it's a new entity introduced as part of modules project #### PR fixes following issue(s) Fixes # (issue number) Part of https://app.zenhub.com/workspaces/modules-pod-63e0d668a7fea03850c89c6f/issues/gh/appsmithorg/appsmith/27352 #### Type of change - Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception) > > ## 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 - [ ] Manual - [ ] JUnit - [ ] Jest - [ ] 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 - [ ] 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 - [ ] 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: - [ ] [Speedbreak features](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#speedbreakers-) have been covered - [ ] Test plan covers all impacted features and [areas of interest](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#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
2023-09-29 10:42:14 +00:00
import { ENTITY_TYPE_VALUE } from "entities/DataTree/dataTreeFactory";
chore: route builder refactor (#27905) ## Description This PR aims to achieve 2 things 1. Make route building independent of explicitly passing `pageId` as param when the route is generated against the current page navigation. 2. Add extensible points to extend basePath generation in EE. THIS PR DOES NOT CHANGE ROUTE GENERATION. Changes: In `app/client/src/ce/entities/URLRedirect/URLAssembly.ts` 1. Moves the logic of `generateBasePath` way to specific method called `generateBasePathForApps` and the generateBasePath is available to extend and switch between a different base path generation logic in EE. 2. Adds a new member variable called `currentPageId`. This `currentPageId` would help generating basePath without explicitly passing `pageId` to the build method. If a `pageId` is passed it would be overridden in the `resolveEntityId` logic. 3. Added `resolveEntityId` method to resolve the entity (pageId) based on the params passed and the `currentPageId`. This method also acts as an extension point for extending the logic to any other resolution logic similar to `generateBasePath` In `app/client/src/pages/AppViewer/index.tsx` and `app/client/src/pages/Editor/index.tsx` The `currentPageId` is set using the `urlBuilder.setCurrentPageId` when the component mounts or page changes and unset when the component unmounts. #### PR fixes following issue(s) Fixes #27840 #### 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 - Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception) ## 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 - [ ] JUnit - [x] Jest - [ ] 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/Guidelines-for-test-plans#speedbreakers-) have been covered - [ ] Test plan covers all impacted features and [areas of interest](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#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
2023-10-12 05:31:22 +00:00
import { builderURL } from "@appsmith/RouteBuilder";
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 { EntityNavigationData } from "selectors/navigationSelectors";
feat: peek overlay (#20053) ## Description Hover over appsmith properties in code to peek data. <img width="380" alt="image" src="https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/66776129/217707810-164924c0-36e8-4450-b087-18af333c7547.png"> This right now covers: - Queries/JsObjects/Apis/Widgets and their properties. - Note: For query or Api, this'll work only upto `Api.data`. (Not `Api.data.users[0].id`) - This is because of the way codemirror renders code and we'll need more time to see how this is best handled. Misc: - added `react-append-to-body` to work with variable height for peek overlay - we needed a container that doesn't apply `position: absolute` to itself - Because, when a container's `height` is zero with `position: absolute` (like in bp3-portal), child elements cannot be positioned using just the `bottom` property - with `react-append-to-body`, the container won't have `position: absolute`, instead it is applied to the child element `<div>` directly, hence we can position using `bottom` property. Fixes #17507 Media https://www.loom.com/share/0f17918fcd604805b023c215d57fce43 ## Type of change - New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality) ## How Has This Been Tested? - Manual ### Test Plan https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/issues/2173 https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/issues/2178 ### Issues raised during DP testing https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/20053#issuecomment-1420545330 https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/20053#issuecomment-1424427913 ## 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: - [x] Test plan has been approved by relevant developers - [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by QA - [x] 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
2023-02-17 16:03:34 +00:00
import { createNavData } from "./common";
export const getWidgetChildrenNavData = (
feat: peek overlay nested properties + perf improvements (#23414) Fixes #23057 Fixes #23054 ## Description TL;DR Added support for peeking on nested properties. e.g. `Api1.data[0].id`. This won't work when: - local variables are involved in the expression. e.g. `Api1.data[x].id` won't support peeking at the variable `[x]` or anything after that. - library code is involved e.g. `moment`, `_` etc... - when functions are called. e.g. Api1.data[0].id.toFixed() Because these cases requires evaluation. <img width="355" alt="image" src="https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/assets/66776129/d09d1f0d-1692-46f5-8ec1-592f4fe75f7a"> #### Media (old vs new) https://www.loom.com/share/dedcf113439c4ee2a19028acca54045e ## Performance improvements: - Use AST to identify expressions instead marking text manually. - This reduces the number of markers we process (~ half). - Before ![image](https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/assets/66776129/bb16ac6b-46dd-4e39-8524-e4f4fa2c3243) - After ![image](https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/assets/66776129/28f0f209-5437-4718-a74a-f025c576afda) - AST logs https://www.loom.com/share/ddde93233cc8470ea04309d8a8332240 #### Type of change - Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue) - New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality) ## Testing > #### How Has This Been Tested? - [x] Manual - [x] Jest - [x] Cypress > > #### Test Plan https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/issues/2402 #### Issues raised during DP testing https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/23414#issuecomment-1553164908 ## 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: - [x] [Speedbreak features](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Test-plan-implementation#speedbreaker-features-to-consider-for-every-change) have been covered - [x] 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 - [x] Manually tested functionality on DP - [ ] We had an implementation alignment call with stakeholders post QA Round 2 - [x] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by SDET/manual QA - [x] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after Cypress tests were reviewed - [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after JUnit tests were reviewed
2023-05-26 11:42:10 +00:00
widgetName: string,
widgetType: string,
feat: peek overlay (#20053) ## Description Hover over appsmith properties in code to peek data. <img width="380" alt="image" src="https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/66776129/217707810-164924c0-36e8-4450-b087-18af333c7547.png"> This right now covers: - Queries/JsObjects/Apis/Widgets and their properties. - Note: For query or Api, this'll work only upto `Api.data`. (Not `Api.data.users[0].id`) - This is because of the way codemirror renders code and we'll need more time to see how this is best handled. Misc: - added `react-append-to-body` to work with variable height for peek overlay - we needed a container that doesn't apply `position: absolute` to itself - Because, when a container's `height` is zero with `position: absolute` (like in bp3-portal), child elements cannot be positioned using just the `bottom` property - with `react-append-to-body`, the container won't have `position: absolute`, instead it is applied to the child element `<div>` directly, hence we can position using `bottom` property. Fixes #17507 Media https://www.loom.com/share/0f17918fcd604805b023c215d57fce43 ## Type of change - New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality) ## How Has This Been Tested? - Manual ### Test Plan https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/issues/2173 https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/issues/2178 ### Issues raised during DP testing https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/20053#issuecomment-1420545330 https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/20053#issuecomment-1424427913 ## 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: - [x] Test plan has been approved by relevant developers - [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by QA - [x] 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
2023-02-17 16:03:34 +00:00
dataTree: DataTree,
pageId: string,
) => {
feat: peek overlay nested properties + perf improvements (#23414) Fixes #23057 Fixes #23054 ## Description TL;DR Added support for peeking on nested properties. e.g. `Api1.data[0].id`. This won't work when: - local variables are involved in the expression. e.g. `Api1.data[x].id` won't support peeking at the variable `[x]` or anything after that. - library code is involved e.g. `moment`, `_` etc... - when functions are called. e.g. Api1.data[0].id.toFixed() Because these cases requires evaluation. <img width="355" alt="image" src="https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/assets/66776129/d09d1f0d-1692-46f5-8ec1-592f4fe75f7a"> #### Media (old vs new) https://www.loom.com/share/dedcf113439c4ee2a19028acca54045e ## Performance improvements: - Use AST to identify expressions instead marking text manually. - This reduces the number of markers we process (~ half). - Before ![image](https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/assets/66776129/bb16ac6b-46dd-4e39-8524-e4f4fa2c3243) - After ![image](https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/assets/66776129/28f0f209-5437-4718-a74a-f025c576afda) - AST logs https://www.loom.com/share/ddde93233cc8470ea04309d8a8332240 #### Type of change - Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue) - New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality) ## Testing > #### How Has This Been Tested? - [x] Manual - [x] Jest - [x] Cypress > > #### Test Plan https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/issues/2402 #### Issues raised during DP testing https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/23414#issuecomment-1553164908 ## 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: - [x] [Speedbreak features](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Test-plan-implementation#speedbreaker-features-to-consider-for-every-change) have been covered - [x] 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 - [x] Manually tested functionality on DP - [ ] We had an implementation alignment call with stakeholders post QA Round 2 - [x] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by SDET/manual QA - [x] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after Cypress tests were reviewed - [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after JUnit tests were reviewed
2023-05-26 11:42:10 +00:00
const dataTreeWidget: WidgetEntity = dataTree[widgetName] as WidgetEntity;
if (widgetType === "FORM_WIDGET") {
feat: peek overlay (#20053) ## Description Hover over appsmith properties in code to peek data. <img width="380" alt="image" src="https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/66776129/217707810-164924c0-36e8-4450-b087-18af333c7547.png"> This right now covers: - Queries/JsObjects/Apis/Widgets and their properties. - Note: For query or Api, this'll work only upto `Api.data`. (Not `Api.data.users[0].id`) - This is because of the way codemirror renders code and we'll need more time to see how this is best handled. Misc: - added `react-append-to-body` to work with variable height for peek overlay - we needed a container that doesn't apply `position: absolute` to itself - Because, when a container's `height` is zero with `position: absolute` (like in bp3-portal), child elements cannot be positioned using just the `bottom` property - with `react-append-to-body`, the container won't have `position: absolute`, instead it is applied to the child element `<div>` directly, hence we can position using `bottom` property. Fixes #17507 Media https://www.loom.com/share/0f17918fcd604805b023c215d57fce43 ## Type of change - New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality) ## How Has This Been Tested? - Manual ### Test Plan https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/issues/2173 https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/issues/2178 ### Issues raised during DP testing https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/20053#issuecomment-1420545330 https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/20053#issuecomment-1424427913 ## 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: - [x] Test plan has been approved by relevant developers - [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by QA - [x] 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
2023-02-17 16:03:34 +00:00
const children: EntityNavigationData = {};
const formChildren: EntityNavigationData = {};
if (dataTreeWidget) {
feat: peek overlay nested properties + perf improvements (#23414) Fixes #23057 Fixes #23054 ## Description TL;DR Added support for peeking on nested properties. e.g. `Api1.data[0].id`. This won't work when: - local variables are involved in the expression. e.g. `Api1.data[x].id` won't support peeking at the variable `[x]` or anything after that. - library code is involved e.g. `moment`, `_` etc... - when functions are called. e.g. Api1.data[0].id.toFixed() Because these cases requires evaluation. <img width="355" alt="image" src="https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/assets/66776129/d09d1f0d-1692-46f5-8ec1-592f4fe75f7a"> #### Media (old vs new) https://www.loom.com/share/dedcf113439c4ee2a19028acca54045e ## Performance improvements: - Use AST to identify expressions instead marking text manually. - This reduces the number of markers we process (~ half). - Before ![image](https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/assets/66776129/bb16ac6b-46dd-4e39-8524-e4f4fa2c3243) - After ![image](https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/assets/66776129/28f0f209-5437-4718-a74a-f025c576afda) - AST logs https://www.loom.com/share/ddde93233cc8470ea04309d8a8332240 #### Type of change - Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue) - New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality) ## Testing > #### How Has This Been Tested? - [x] Manual - [x] Jest - [x] Cypress > > #### Test Plan https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/issues/2402 #### Issues raised during DP testing https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/23414#issuecomment-1553164908 ## 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: - [x] [Speedbreak features](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Test-plan-implementation#speedbreaker-features-to-consider-for-every-change) have been covered - [x] 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 - [x] Manually tested functionality on DP - [ ] We had an implementation alignment call with stakeholders post QA Round 2 - [x] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by SDET/manual QA - [x] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after Cypress tests were reviewed - [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after JUnit tests were reviewed
2023-05-26 11:42:10 +00:00
Object.keys(dataTreeWidget.data || {}).forEach((childWidgetName) => {
const childWidgetId = (dataTree[childWidgetName] as WidgetEntity)
.widgetId;
formChildren[childWidgetName] = createNavData({
id: `${widgetName}.data.${childWidgetName}`,
name: childWidgetName,
chore: query module evaluation (#27660) > Pull Request Template > > Use this template to quickly create a well written pull request. Delete all quotes before creating the pull request. > ## Description There are multiple refactors and split for query module's creator flow changes which involves module input -- it's a new entity introduced as part of modules project #### PR fixes following issue(s) Fixes # (issue number) Part of https://app.zenhub.com/workspaces/modules-pod-63e0d668a7fea03850c89c6f/issues/gh/appsmithorg/appsmith/27352 #### Type of change - Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception) > > ## 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 - [ ] Manual - [ ] JUnit - [ ] Jest - [ ] 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 - [ ] 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 - [ ] 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: - [ ] [Speedbreak features](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#speedbreakers-) have been covered - [ ] Test plan covers all impacted features and [areas of interest](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#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
2023-09-29 10:42:14 +00:00
type: ENTITY_TYPE_VALUE.WIDGET,
feat: peek overlay (#20053) ## Description Hover over appsmith properties in code to peek data. <img width="380" alt="image" src="https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/66776129/217707810-164924c0-36e8-4450-b087-18af333c7547.png"> This right now covers: - Queries/JsObjects/Apis/Widgets and their properties. - Note: For query or Api, this'll work only upto `Api.data`. (Not `Api.data.users[0].id`) - This is because of the way codemirror renders code and we'll need more time to see how this is best handled. Misc: - added `react-append-to-body` to work with variable height for peek overlay - we needed a container that doesn't apply `position: absolute` to itself - Because, when a container's `height` is zero with `position: absolute` (like in bp3-portal), child elements cannot be positioned using just the `bottom` property - with `react-append-to-body`, the container won't have `position: absolute`, instead it is applied to the child element `<div>` directly, hence we can position using `bottom` property. Fixes #17507 Media https://www.loom.com/share/0f17918fcd604805b023c215d57fce43 ## Type of change - New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality) ## How Has This Been Tested? - Manual ### Test Plan https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/issues/2173 https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/issues/2178 ### Issues raised during DP testing https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/20053#issuecomment-1420545330 https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/20053#issuecomment-1424427913 ## 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: - [x] Test plan has been approved by relevant developers - [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by QA - [x] 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
2023-02-17 16:03:34 +00:00
url: builderURL({ pageId, hash: childWidgetId }),
children: {},
});
});
}
feat: peek overlay nested properties + perf improvements (#23414) Fixes #23057 Fixes #23054 ## Description TL;DR Added support for peeking on nested properties. e.g. `Api1.data[0].id`. This won't work when: - local variables are involved in the expression. e.g. `Api1.data[x].id` won't support peeking at the variable `[x]` or anything after that. - library code is involved e.g. `moment`, `_` etc... - when functions are called. e.g. Api1.data[0].id.toFixed() Because these cases requires evaluation. <img width="355" alt="image" src="https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/assets/66776129/d09d1f0d-1692-46f5-8ec1-592f4fe75f7a"> #### Media (old vs new) https://www.loom.com/share/dedcf113439c4ee2a19028acca54045e ## Performance improvements: - Use AST to identify expressions instead marking text manually. - This reduces the number of markers we process (~ half). - Before ![image](https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/assets/66776129/bb16ac6b-46dd-4e39-8524-e4f4fa2c3243) - After ![image](https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/assets/66776129/28f0f209-5437-4718-a74a-f025c576afda) - AST logs https://www.loom.com/share/ddde93233cc8470ea04309d8a8332240 #### Type of change - Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue) - New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality) ## Testing > #### How Has This Been Tested? - [x] Manual - [x] Jest - [x] Cypress > > #### Test Plan https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/issues/2402 #### Issues raised during DP testing https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/23414#issuecomment-1553164908 ## 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: - [x] [Speedbreak features](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Test-plan-implementation#speedbreaker-features-to-consider-for-every-change) have been covered - [x] 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 - [x] Manually tested functionality on DP - [ ] We had an implementation alignment call with stakeholders post QA Round 2 - [x] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by SDET/manual QA - [x] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after Cypress tests were reviewed - [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after JUnit tests were reviewed
2023-05-26 11:42:10 +00:00
return { childNavData: children };
feat: peek overlay (#20053) ## Description Hover over appsmith properties in code to peek data. <img width="380" alt="image" src="https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/66776129/217707810-164924c0-36e8-4450-b087-18af333c7547.png"> This right now covers: - Queries/JsObjects/Apis/Widgets and their properties. - Note: For query or Api, this'll work only upto `Api.data`. (Not `Api.data.users[0].id`) - This is because of the way codemirror renders code and we'll need more time to see how this is best handled. Misc: - added `react-append-to-body` to work with variable height for peek overlay - we needed a container that doesn't apply `position: absolute` to itself - Because, when a container's `height` is zero with `position: absolute` (like in bp3-portal), child elements cannot be positioned using just the `bottom` property - with `react-append-to-body`, the container won't have `position: absolute`, instead it is applied to the child element `<div>` directly, hence we can position using `bottom` property. Fixes #17507 Media https://www.loom.com/share/0f17918fcd604805b023c215d57fce43 ## Type of change - New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality) ## How Has This Been Tested? - Manual ### Test Plan https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/issues/2173 https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/issues/2178 ### Issues raised during DP testing https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/20053#issuecomment-1420545330 https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/20053#issuecomment-1424427913 ## 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: - [x] Test plan has been approved by relevant developers - [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by QA - [x] 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
2023-02-17 16:03:34 +00:00
}
};