## Description
- Optimisation around evaluation updates to the state
- Updates generation logic moved from main thread to worker thread
- The diff between previous state and next state is less exacting to
limit the number of updates
- Logic to compress similar updates to reduce the diff updates sent from
worker thread to main thread
- Memoisation fixes and some selector optimisation for improved
performance.
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes#24866
#### 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
- [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
- [ ] 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
- [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
## Description
This PR removes the differentiation between async and sync js functions
in Appsmith
- All JS functions can run on page load
- All JS functions can request confirmation before executing
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes#25176Fixes#25065Fixes#15560Fixes#15273Fixes#12639Fixes#14229Fixes#13888
### Latest DP
https://ce-25399.dp.appsmith.com/
### Performance
<img width="748" alt="Screenshot 2023-08-04 at 11 05 50"
src="https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/assets/46670083/580b2091-7ee7-4845-b7bf-ca76bc3e6c1f">
#### 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
> https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/issues/2455
>
>
#### 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
- [x] Test plan covers all impacted features and [areas of
interest](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#areas-of-interest-)
- [x] Test plan has been peer reviewed by project stakeholders and other
QA members
- [x] Manually tested functionality on DP
- [x] 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
---------
Co-authored-by: Nidhi <nidhi@appsmith.com>
This PR adds more details to the "EXECUTE_ACTION" event on trigger
fields
<img width="500" alt="Screenshot 2023-07-05 at 10 03 32"
src="https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/assets/46670083/13b3ab48-6c19-453a-8eb8-c87129e8c8d5">
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes#24706
#### 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
- [ ] 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:
- [ ] [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
---------
Co-authored-by: Aishwarya UR <aishwarya@appsmith.com>
## Description
This change adds a linting error for direct mutation of widget property
like `Widget.property = "dsf"` and instead suggests to use setter
methods.
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes#5822
#### Type of change
- New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
## Testing
- [x] Add jest tests as mentioned in the
[comments](https://www.notion.so/appsmith/Widget-Property-Setters-Tech-Spec-2a34730e2e6d4df8ae7637c363b1096c?pvs=4#276554d9875b42d68868aa969e9d7d03)
of the tech spec document for this project.
- [x] Add test to verify linting error for widget assignment
- [x] Add cypress test for autocomplete of more setter methods
- [x] Add cypress test for currencyInput setValue
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [ ] Manual
- [ ] Jest
- [x] Cypress
#### 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:
- [ ] [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
- [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
---------
Co-authored-by: Druthi Polisetty <druthi@appsmith.com>
## Description
This PR introduces a new architecture, making evaluation and linting
independent.
<img width="500" alt="Screenshot 2023-07-04 at 17 24 40"
src="https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/assets/46670083/00b1eab9-cd79-4442-b51a-5345c2d6c4da">
In the previous architecture, one dependency graph was used to hold the
relationship between entities in the application and subsequently, the
"evaluation order" and "paths to lint" were generated.
Although similar, the dependency graph required for evaluation and
linting differ. For example, trigger fields should not depend on any
other entity/entity path in the eval's dependency graph since they are
not reactive. This is not the case for the linting dependency graph.
## Performance
- This PR introduces "lint only" actions. These actions trigger linting,
but not evaluation. For example, UPDATE_JS_ACTION_BODY_INIT (which is
fired immediately after a user edits the body of a JS Object). Since
linting fires without waiting for a successful update on the server,
**response time decreases by 40%** (from 2s to 1.2s).
- Reduction in time taken to generate paths requiring linting.
<img width="715" alt="Screenshot 2023-07-04 at 18 10 52"
src="https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/assets/46670083/d73a4bfc-de73-4fa7-bdca-af1e5d8ce8a1">
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes#23447Fixes#23166Fixes#24194Fixes#23720Fixes#23868Fixes#21895
Latest DP: https://appsmith-r3f9e325p-get-appsmith.vercel.app/
#### Type of change
- Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception)
## Testing
>
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [x] Manual
- [ ] Jest
- [ ] Cypress
>
>
#### Test Plan
https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/23865#issuecomment-1606738633
>
>
#### Issues raised during DP testing
https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/23865#issuecomment-1608779227
response:
https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/23865#issuecomment-1619677033
>
>
>
## 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/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)
- [x] 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
- [ ] 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
---------
Co-authored-by: arunvjn <arun@appsmith.com>
Co-authored-by: Ivan Akulov <mail@iamakulov.com>
## Description
Add analytics for JSObject variable creation and mutation event.
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes#24038
#### Type of change
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
## Testing
#### How Has This Been Tested?
#### 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:
- [ ] [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
## Description
Meta Rehydration got regressed due to Datatree splitting
(https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/21547). Default value was
getting accessed from configTree instead of entityTree.
Fixes#22534
## Type of change
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
## How Has This Been Tested?
- 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
- [ ] 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
- [ ] 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: Tolulope Adetula <31691737+Tooluloope@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Tolulope <adetulatolu@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Aishwarya UR <aishwarya@appsmith.com>
## Description
This PR improves the error resolution journey for users. Lint warnings
are added to async JS functions which are bound to data fields (sync
fields).
- JSObjects are "linted" by individual properties (as opposed to being
"linted" as a whole)
- Only edited jsobject properties get "linted", improving jsObject
linting by ~35%.(This largely depends on the size of the JSObject)
<img width="500" alt="Screenshot 2023-04-03 at 11 17 45"
src="https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/46670083/229482424-233f3950-ffec-46f5-8c42-680dff6a412f.png">
<img width="500" alt="Screenshot 2023-03-14 at 11 26 00"
src="https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/46670083/224975572-b2d8d404-aac6-43fb-be14-20edf7c56117.png">
<img width="500" alt="Screenshot 2023-03-14 at 11 41 11"
src="https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/46670083/224975952-c40848b1-69d8-489d-9b62-24127ea1a2f1.png">
Fixes#20289Fixes#20008
## Type of change
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
## How Has This Been Tested?
- CYPRESS
- JEST
### 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
- [x] 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
## Description
> Code splitting FE files to support app level invites on Business
edition.
Fixes [#21018](https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/21018)
[#21015](https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/21015)
## Type of change
- Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception)
## How Has This Been Tested?
> Nothing is affected on CE by this change.
- 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
- [x] My changes generate no new warnings
- [ ] 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
## Description
When we change the table style to SHORT from DEFAULT, during diff as the
value changed from undefined to SHORT translated diff converts it to
NOOP and skips all dependent paths evaluation. Change here indicates if
any path changes from no value to any value evaluate path and all
dependent paths as well
- **MetaHOC changes**:- metaProperties is used to set the
`initialMetaState` for the metaHOC instead of using `this.props`.
Fixes#21708
## Type of change
> Please delete options that are not relevant.
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
## 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
---------
Co-authored-by: Rishabh-Rathod <rishabh.rathod@appsmith.com>
## Description
Adding another event called ENTITY_BINDING_SUCCESS which is fired
whenever there is a successful binding created by the user. The
BINDING_SUCCESS event was firing more events than actual binding and
therefore we created a new event to capture the right data.
Fixes#20468
## Type of change
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Manual
### Test Plan
> Add Testsmith test cases links that relate to this PR
### Issues raised during DP testing
When table widget 'data table' is cleared, ENTITY_BINDING_SUCCESS event
is triggered
https://www.loom.com/share/280ab5165b684d59948ae1bc9fe0c074
Templates automatically triggers entitybindingsuccess
https://www.loom.com/share/16be5ae834b44d7bacc73a6d89a99fbd
## 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 is the second phase of the split data tree. In the previous version, we collected all config paths in each entity and put them in the `__config__` property. All those config properties do get inserted into final data tree which we don't need at all.
As part of this change, we will be creating another tree i.e **'configTree'** which will contain all config of each entity.
unEvalTree is split into 2 trees =>
1. unEvalTree
2. configTree
Example:
previous unEvalTree Api1 content
<img width="1766" alt="image" src="https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/7846888/215990868-0b095421-e7b8-44bc-89aa-065b35e237d6.png">
After this change
unEvalTree Api1 content
<img width="1758" alt="image" src="https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/7846888/215991045-506fb10a-645a-4aad-8e77-0f3786a86977.png">
Note- above example doesn't have '__config__' property
configTree Api1 content
<img width="1760" alt="image" src="https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/7846888/215991169-a2e03443-5d6a-4ff1-97c5-a12593e46395.png">
## Type of change
- Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception)
- #11351
## How Has This Been Tested?
- 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
Co-authored-by: Aishwarya UR <aishwarya@appsmith.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
7cbb12af88,
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>
## Description
### Cause of issue
When a reactive node was newly added (a possible change from `undefined`
to a valid value), the `dependency map` was not updated.
This PR :
- Fixes this issue by handling all possible cases of a NEW_EVENT
- Cleans up the logic to update the dependency map
Fixes#20401
## Type of change
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Jest unit tests
### 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
- [ ] 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
- [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
- [x] Added Test Plan Approved label after reveiwing all Cypress test
## Description
Cause of issue
During evaluation, JS Functions are stored as String objects, rather
than string literals. This was done to allow us to add a ".data"
property to it.
Solution
Before translating diffs, String objects should be converted to
literals, and separated from the ".data" field
Fixes#20893
## Type of change
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
## How Has This Been Tested?
-WIP
### 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
Passed in `cloudHosting` env variable to worker for certain actions.
This will be used to filter `PlatformFunctions` and
`ActionTriggerFunctionNames` in EE.
So we can have EE exclusive platform functions and the necessary linting
for those.
eval worker actions:
- SETUP (uses and assigns variable to global worker scope)
- evalTree, evalTrigger uses the variable from global scope
lint worker action(s):
- LINT_TREE (uses variable directly)
Fixes https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith-ee/issues/1024
## Type of change
- Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception)
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Jest
- Cypress
## 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
- [x] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag
## Description
This PR updates the error logs
- Establishing a consistent format for all error messages.
- Revising error titles and details for improved understanding.
- Compiling internal documentation of all error categories,
subcategories, and error descriptions.
Updated Error Interface:
https://www.notion.so/appsmith/Error-Interface-for-Plugin-Execution-Error-7b3f5323ba4c40bfad281ae717ccf79b
PRD:
https://www.notion.so/appsmith/PRD-Error-Handling-Framework-4ac9747057fd4105a9d52cb8b42f4452?pvs=4#008e9c79ff3c484abf0250a5416cf052
>TL;DR
Fixes #
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
- New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Manual
- Jest
- Cypress
### Test Plan
### Issues raised during DP testing
## 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
- [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
---------
Co-authored-by: subrata <subrata@appsmith.com>
## Description
Sets default values of meta fields to their defaultMetaProps value
instead of undefined
Fixes#20634
## Type of change
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
## How Has This Been Tested?
- 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
---------
Co-authored-by: Aishwarya UR <aishwarya@appsmith.com>
## Description
TL;DR
This is a complete architectural change of of List widget works to
support all widgets we currently have and should automatically support
any future widgets.
It also introduces nested List widgets i.e a list widget can have a
another list widget which in turn can have another list widget.
Fixes#18206Fixes#6775Fixes#13211Fixes#16582Fixes#11739Fixes#15094Fixes#6840Fixes#10841Fixes#17386Fixes#18340Fixes#16898Fixes#17555Fixes#6858Fixes#9568Fixes#17480Fixes#18523Fixes#18206Fixes#16586Fixes#18106Fixes#16576Fixes#14697Fixes#9607Fixes#19648Fixes#19739Fixes#19652Fixes#18730Fixes#19503Fixes#19498Fixes#19437Fixes#5245Fixes#19150Fixes#18638Fixes#11332Fixes#17901Fixes#19043Fixes#17777Fixes#8237Fixes#15487Fixes#15988Fixes#18621Fixes#16788Fixes#18110Fixes#18382Fixes#17427Fixes#18105Fixes#18287Fixes#19808Fixes#14655
## Type of change
- New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Cypress
- Jest
- Manual
## 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
---------
Co-authored-by: Tolulope Adetula <31691737+Tooluloope@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Favour Ohanekwu <fohanekwu@gmail.com>
## Description
Any platform function that accepts a callback were unable to access the
variables declared in its parent scopes. This was a implementation miss
when we originally designed platform functions and again when we turned
almost every platform function into a Promise. This PR fixes this
limitation along with some other edge cases.
- Access outer scope variables inside the callback of run, postMessage,
setInterval, getGeoLocation and watchGeolocation functions.
- Fixes certain edge cases where functions with callbacks when called
inside the then block doesn't get executed. Eg `showAlert.then(() => /*
Doesn't execute */ Api1.run(() => {}))`
- Changes the implementation of all the platform function in appsmith to
maintain the execution metadata (info on from where a function was
invoked, event associated with it etc)
#### Refactor changes
- Added a new folder **_fns_** that would now hold all the platform
functions.
- Introduced a new ExecutionMetadata singleton class that is now
responsible for hold all the meta data related to the current
evaluation.
- Remove TRIGGER_COLLECTOR array where all callback based platform
functions were batched and introduced an Event Emitter based
implementation to handle batched fn calls.
- All callback based functions now emits event when invoked. These
events have handlers attached to the TriggerEmitter object. These
handler does the job of batching these invocations and telling the main
thread. It also ensures that platform fn calls that gets triggered out
the the context of a request/response cycle work.
#### Architecture
<img width="751" alt="Screenshot 2023-02-07 at 10 04 26"
src="https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/32433245/217259200-5eac71bc-f0d3-4d3c-9b69-2a8dc81351bc.png">
Fixes#13156Fixes#20225
## Type of change
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
- Refactor
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Jest
- Cypress
- Manual
### Test Plan
- [ ] https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/issues/2181
- [ ] https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/issues/2182
- [ ] Post message -
https://appsmith-git-chore-outer-scope-variable-access-get-appsmith.vercel.app/app/post-msg-app/page1-635fcfba2987b442a739b938/edit
- [ ] Apps:
https://appsmith-git-chore-outer-scope-variable-access-get-appsmith.vercel.app/app/earworm-1/home-630c9d85b4658d0f257c4987/edit
- [ ]
https://appsmith-git-chore-outer-scope-variable-access-get-appsmith.vercel.app/app/automation-test-cases/page-1-630c6b90d4ecd573f6bb01e9/edit#0hmn8m90ei
### 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
- [ ] 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 reviewing all Cypress test
## Description
### Cause of issue
During the translation of dataTree diff, a change from an `Array` to `undefined`, was interpreted as a **delete event**. This causes the path to be deleted from the dependencyMap, hence doesn't ever show up in the evaluation order.
### Solution
A change from an Array or Object to undefined is translated to
1. Deletion of all Array accessor paths
2. Edit of propertyPath
### Example
Multiselect1.selectedOptions changes from ["Red", "Green"] to **undefined**. This translates to
1. Delete event for Multiselect1.selectedOptions[0] & Multiselect1.selectedOptions[1]
2. Edit event for Multiselect1.selectedOptions
Fixes#20428
## Type of change
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
## How Has This Been Tested?
- 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
Co-authored-by: Aishwarya UR <aishwarya@appsmith.com>
## Description
Current evaluation architecture has 2 natures of evaluation
- sync evaluation ( evaluation for data fields )
- async evaluation ( evaluation for trigger events )
For every evaluation, this nature needs to be set according to the field
being evaluated.
It was noticed that for async code evaluation where a code block
executes only after the resolution of promise, for example,
`fetch().then((res) => { showAlert("fetched") });`
Here, the `showAlert` only executes when the fetch is completed and
before that, it could be possible that we have switched to sync
evaluation in the worker. This would lead to a `showAlert` throwing
error.
Hence, we resolve this issue by making `async evaluation` as the default
nature of evaluation.
Fixes https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/19733
## Type of change
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Manual
1. Validated Supabse app to check the error and JSPDF
2. Validated sync data field with sync function and framework function -
verify that error for async function is displayed properly
3. Validated older apps(Automation app/Silly string) to verify the Async
error is not displayed
4. .then and catch block in async function -
- Jest
- Cypress
### Test Plan
### Issues raised during DP testing
---------
Co-authored-by: Aishwarya UR <aishwarya@appsmith.com>
## Description
As auditLog related Code refactor for EE auditLog changes.
- Moving evalWorkerActionSaga to new file
- Created JSFunctionExecutionSaga & postJSFunctionExecutionLog
- logic for the functionality of it would be added in EE.
- Made required changes in the JSProxy file to send functionName as a
parameter.
## Type of change
Code refactor
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Manual
- Jest
- Cypress
## Checklist:
### Dev activity
- [x] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [x] 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
- [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
The introduction of MetaWidgets in
https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/15839 introduces a scenario
where widgets are newly added to the unevalTree but already have defined
meta values. These previously defined meta values have higher priority
and should not get overridden by default values.
Fixes https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/16926
## Type of change
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
- New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
## 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
Related to #15538
To enable adding a new action only for EE.
- Moved `PLATFORM_FUNCTIONS` and related types
- Moved `NavigationSagas` and added payload type to use in EE
## Description
code refactor for jsFunction audit log
This is PR to support the changes in
https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith-ee/pull/941/files
## Type of change
chore
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Manual
- Jest
- Cypress
### Test Plan
No test plan required.
### 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
Co-authored-by: Ohans <fohanekwu@gmail.com>
## Description
- Added logic to replace async function undefined error with
"{{actionName}} cannot be used in this field".
- This change improves performance for
- ParseJSActions
- Triggers execution
- Each Appsmith framework action execution.
- This change adds all platform functions to evalContext permanently.
Fixes#12179Fixes#13273
Internal discussion for error message :-
https://theappsmith.slack.com/archives/C02K0SZQ7V3/p1667457021297869?thread_ts=1667385039.225229&cid=C02K0SZQ7V3
## Type of change
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
- Performance improvement
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Manual
- Jest
- Cypress
### Test Plan
- [ ] https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/issues/2086
### 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
Co-authored-by: Aishwarya UR <aishwarya@appsmith.com>
