## Description
- This PR Stops SSH which is run on port 22 for enabling it for Local
Gitea support from TED
## Type of change
- Ci-test yml file update:
## Checklist
### QA activity:
- [X] Added Test Plan Approved label after reviewing all changes
## Description
- This PR reverts https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/20471
## Type of change
- ci-test yml file update
## Checklist:
### QA activity:
- [X] Added Test Plan Approved label after reviewing all changes
## Description
This PR reverts https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/20471
## Type of change
- ci-test yml file update
## Checklist:
### QA activity:
- [X] Added Test Plan Approved label after reviewing all changes test
## Description
- This PR reverts #20471
## Type of change
- ci-test yml file update
## Checklist:
### QA activity:
- [X] Added Test Plan Approved label after reveiwing all changes
## Description
- This PR Stops SSH which is run on port 22 for enabling it for Local
Gitea support from TED
## Type of change
- Script update
## Checklist:
### QA activity:
- [X] Added Test Plan Approved label after reviewing the changes
## Description
- This PR adds the 3000 port mapping for the TED GITEA support for the
cypress tests
## Type of change
- Script update
## Checklist:
### QA activity:
- [X] Test plan has been peer reviewed by QA
- [X] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by either SDET or
manual QA
## Description
- Updated the if condition to run the ci-test
## Type of change
- ci-test.yml
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Cypress
## Checklist:
### 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
## Description
- Modularising the ci-test
## Type of change
- Workflow files
## Checklist:
### 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
## Description
> Add back setup of ui nginx environment using docker while setting up
tests
Fixes # [(issue)](https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/20124)
> if no issue exists, please create an issue and ask the maintainers
about this first
## Type of change
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Manual
## 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
- [ ] 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
## Description
- This PR includes the script updates for connecting to TED Git instead
of actual Github for running tests
## Type of change
- New script changes to connect to TED Git
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Cypress CI runs
## Checklist:
### QA activity:
- [X] Test plan has been approved by relevant developers
- [X] Test plan has been peer reviewed by QA
- [X] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by either SDET or
manual QA
- [X] Organized project review call with relevant stakeholders after
Round 1/2 of QA
- [X] Added Test Plan Approved label after reveiwing all Cypress test
## Description
- This PR skips the upgrade spec until its fully functional
## Type of change
- Script fix
## Checklist:
### QA activity:
- [X] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by either SDET or
manual QA
Small change to add the performance label independently to any issue. We
have a few labels that belong to the performance team, ex: perf infra,
so that should still kick in the rest of the automation
Set the pr number as 0 for push event.
> Pull Request Template
>
> Use this template to quickly create a well written pull request.
Delete all quotes before creating the pull request.
## Description
> Please include a summary of the changes and which issue has been
fixed. Please also include relevant motivation
> and context. List any dependencies that are required for this change
> Links to Notion, Figma or any other documents that might be relevant
to the PR
> Add a TL;DR when description is extra long (helps content team)
Fixes # (issue)
> if no issue exists, please create an issue and ask the maintainers
about this first
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
## How Has This Been Tested?
> Please describe the tests that you ran to verify your changes. Provide
instructions, so we can reproduce.
> Please also list any relevant details for your test configuration.
> Delete anything that is not important
- Manual
- 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:
- [ ] 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
## Description
- This PR moves all specs from slim to fat container to run tests underneath it
- Fat has the actual libraries that are being shipping to customers, hence this PR
- Also includes moving Git tests from using GitHub to Gitea
## Type of change
- New run (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Cypress CI Fat runs
## Checklist:
### QA activity:
- [X] Test plan has been approved by relevant developers
- [X] Test plan has been peer reviewed by QA
- [X] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by either SDET or manual QA
- [X] Organized project review call with relevant stakeholders after Round 1/2 of QA
- [X] Added Test Plan Approved label after reveiwing all Cypress test
Co-authored-by: yatinappsmith <84702014+yatinappsmith@users.noreply.github.com>
## Description
- This PR removes the Upgrade workflow from being triggered in oktotest
## Type of change
- Yml Script fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
## Description
- Appsmith Upgrade Test
## Type of change
- Cypress
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Cypress
## Checklist:
### 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: Aishwarya UR <aishwarya@appsmith.com>
Add JAVA setup step to perf tests in test build workflow.
This is a possible fix for perf tests on running because backend server
was not up.
Co-authored-by: Satish Gandham <hello@satishgandham.com>
## Description
Hides the list of failed tests behind a spoiler to avoid making PR pages
very long
Fixes # N/A
## Type of change
- Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception)
## Description
Fixes # (issue)
## Type of change
(None of these options are relevant in this scenario, hence the PR)
- 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)
- This change requires a documentation update
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Jest
- Cypress
### Test Plan
### 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
- [ ] 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
## Description
Reverts the changes made to perf job in ui-build-workflow as the perf tests are getting skipped.
Co-authored-by: Satish Gandham <hello@satishgandham.com>
This upgrade takes care of our move to JDK 17, Spring Boot 3.0.1 and a
few other security upgrades along the way.
Fixes#18993
TODO:
- [x] Check CI changes for Java 17
- [x] Check vulnerability report
- [x] Mongock needs an upgrade
- [x] Add JVM args at all possible places for exposing java.time module
- [x] Add type adapters everywhere / use the same config for type
adapters everywhere
Remove perf-tests from /ok-to-test temporarily.
**Why**
Switch to github runners is causing an issue with perf tests, disabling until that is resolved.
Co-authored-by: Satish Gandham <hello@satishgandham.com>
## Description
Ci fix run result due to deprecated
Fixes # (issue)
Media
## Type of change
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
## How Has This Been Tested?
code reivew
### Test Plan
### Issues raised during DP testing
## 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:
- [ ] 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
## Description
Comment failing tests to PR
Fixes #
## Type of change
- New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
## How Has This Been Tested?
Code review. Tested in local fork
### 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
- [X] 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
- [X] 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
* Fix perf test failure due to a wrong step added earlier
* Remove all the steps added to make perf tests work on EE
Co-authored-by: Satish Gandham <hello@satishgandham.com>
## Description
- This PR adds a new fat-migration.yml file which will run all cases in fat container instead of dev.app.appsmith
- This PR will not affect any existing Push/Workflow dispatches as its a separate action file
- Moving to fat container will not be put into action until RBAC is live - so as to not trigger any new challenge at last minute
## Type of change
- New .yml file
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Cypress CI runs
## Checklist:
### QA activity:
- [X] Test plan has been approved by relevant developers
- [X] Test plan has been peer reviewed by QA
- [X] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by either SDET or manual QA
- [X] Organized project review call with relevant stakeholders after Round 1/2 of QA
- [X] Added Test Plan Approved label after reveiwing all Cypress test
* - Add missing env variables to fix perf tests failures in EE
* - Delete source maps on CI only for EE
* - Add the additional steps that might be required for running perf tests on EE
* Update if condition
* Update if condition
* Switch to bash from using sh in build.sh
* Check if the server started later
* Update the check to see if the server has started
Co-authored-by: Satish Gandham <hello@satishgandham.com>
## Description
added video log field to issue template
## Type of change
- chores; changes in the issue template
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Not required
* Rearrange client build steps
* Remove PR from the run meta insert query
* Add repo to the query
Co-authored-by: Satish Gandham <hello@satishgandham.com>
* - Add S3 credentials to environment
- Change the workflow name
- Create performance run meta data record at the begining.
* Fix a typo
* Fix a typo
* Store DB credentials as plain values instead of JSON
* Fix SQL insert query
* Add missing secrets
* Continue even if the meta creation fails
* Fix SQL insert command
* Rename workflow
Co-authored-by: Satish Gandham <hello@satishgandham.com>
* Add option to run only perf tests on github
* Add new line at the end of the file
* - Run the artifacts step even on failure
- Add link to the perf run details
- Remove the perf comment on the PR
Co-authored-by: Satish Gandham <hello@satishgandham.com>
## Description
- This PR includes changes for starting rts server for AST changes to take effect
## Type of change
- yml file updates
## Checklist:
- [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
## Description
- This PR includes changes for starting rts server for AST changes to take effect
## Type of change
- yml file updates
## Checklist:
- [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
* update rts logic to use updated shared AST logic
* Make changes to naming conventions
* Add test cases for RTS and rename ast functions
* Add running jest test to RTS workflow
* Install dependencies and then trigger jest tests in workflow
* Close server connection after test ends
* Remove logs
* Improve jest test descriptions
Fix ci cache & rts build for push workflow
## Description
Fix ci cache & rts build for push workflow
## Type of change
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
## How Has This Been Tested?
code review
## Checklist:
- [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
- [X] 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
## Description
Fix ui-test cache
Fixes # (issue)
## Type of change
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
## How Has This Been Tested?
Code review
## Checklist:
- [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
- [X] 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
## Description
Fix ui-test cache
Fixes # (issue)
## Type of change
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
## How Has This Been Tested?
Code review
## Checklist:
- [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
- [X] 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
## Description
The problem with the RTS workflow after the induction of AST parsing was that while copying the `node_modules`, Ubuntu doesn't follow the symlink and copy the content. It simply copies the symlink as is. This causes issues for RTS service to start.
## Type of change
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Personal repository
## Checklist:
- [ ] 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
## Description
The depot docker step wasn't initialized. This was causing Docker builds to fail.
## Type of change
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Relying on CI
## Checklist:
- [ ] 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
Refer to #16020 for details. This PR has been opened since we could not modify the previous PR since it's a contribution by an external contributor.
Co-authored-by: kylegalbraith <kyle.galbraith459@gmail.com>
## Description
- This PR makes changes to run CI on latest stable Chrome always
## Type of change
- Browser update
## Checklist:
- [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
## Description
- This PR makes changes for moving from Chrome to Electron browser for CI runs & fixes the git hub runners failure issue incases of Chrome version updates
## Type of change
- Browser name update
## Checklist:
- [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
Moving server builds to Buildjet to confirm if it's faster and more reliable
Also, cleaning up some CI workflows to remove references to release-frozen branch.
## Description
This PR adds the string `Community` along with the Appsmith version. This will help users identify the type of instance that they are running.
## Type of change
- New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
## How Has This Been Tested?
Manually
## Checklist:
- [ ] 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
* Clean up the perf folder and update integration commnds to use the new repo
* Use a different token for github auth
* Update the token
* - Remove directory listing command
* Move perf checkout command to the back
* resolve conflicts
* Add directory listing code
* Fix an issue with directory listing
* - Remove directory listing code
Co-authored-by: Satish Gandham <satish@appsmith.com>
* Clean up the perf folder and update integration commnds to use the new repo
* Use a different token for github auth
* Update the token
* - Remove directory listing command
* Move perf checkout command to the back
* resolve conflicts
* Add directory listing code
* Fix an issue with directory listing
Co-authored-by: Satish Gandham <satish@appsmith.com>
* Clean up the perf folder and update integration commnds to use the new repo
* Use a different token for github auth
* Update the token
* - Remove directory listing command
* Move perf checkout command to the back
* resolve conflicts
* Add directory listing code
Co-authored-by: Satish Gandham <satish@appsmith.com>
* Clean up the perf folder and update integration commnds to use the new repo
* Use a different token for github auth
* Update the token
* - Remove directory listing command
Co-authored-by: Satish Gandham <satish@appsmith.com>
* Clean up the perf folder and update integration commnds to use the new repo
* Use a different token for github auth
* Update the token
Co-authored-by: Satish Gandham <satish@appsmith.com>
* Clean up the perf folder and update integration commnds to use the new repo
* Use a different token for github auth
Co-authored-by: Satish Gandham <satish@appsmith.com>
