0c8bd0bd2f
16 Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Ankita Kinger
|
d1af0b8c20
|
fix: Cyclic dependencies for reactive queries run behavior changes (#40481)
## Description
Fixing cyclic dependencies for reactive queries run behavior changes
Fixes #`Issue Number`
_or_
Fixes `Issue URL`
> [!WARNING]
> _If no issue exists, please create an issue first, and check with the
maintainers if the issue is valid._
## Automation
/ok-to-test tags=""
### 🔍 Cypress test results
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment: Cypress test results -->
> [!WARNING]
> Tests have not run on the HEAD
72c296cf462909ee85e7411dde5ca91705d81731 yet
> <hr>Tue, 29 Apr 2025 16:52:23 UTC
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: Cypress test results -->
## Communication
Should the DevRel and Marketing teams inform users about this change?
- [ ] Yes
- [ ] No
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai
-->
## Summary by CodeRabbit
- **New Features**
- Introduced a "Run behavior" dropdown for actions and queries, allowing
users to choose between running on page load or manually.
- Enhanced dropdown controls now display descriptive labels and subtexts
for run behavior options.
- **Improvements**
- Replaced the previous "Run on page load" toggle with a more flexible
run behavior selection across all supported plugins and action types.
- Updated UI labels and tooltips to clarify run behavior settings.
- **Bug Fixes**
- Ensured consistent handling and display of run behavior settings
throughout the application.
- **Documentation**
- Updated descriptions and labels to reflect the new run behavior
terminology.
- **Tests**
- Revised and added tests to validate the new run behavior functionality
and its backward compatibility.
- **Chores**
- Deprecated the old execute-on-load property and API, migrating to the
new run behavior approach for future extensibility.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
|
||
|
Hetu Nandu
|
1a60eaaf89
|
fix: Reduce cycle deps by removing wrong exports (#39268)
## Description Remove specific cycle dependencies created because a file was both importing and exporting items it does not modify. By reducing cycle dependencies here, I am buying credits that allow adding cycle dependencies in another PR but very hard to avoid This PR reduces the deps by 4 EE PR: https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith-ee/pull/6214 PR which adds the cycle deps: https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/39100 ## Automation /ok-to-test tags="@tag.Sanity" ### 🔍 Cypress test results <!-- This is an auto-generated comment: Cypress test results --> > [!TIP] > 🟢 🟢 🟢 All cypress tests have passed! 🎉 🎉 🎉 > Workflow run: <https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/actions/runs/13324385763> > Commit: 34a0f459b27963531adf851f198903cf0831b719 > <a href="https://internal.appsmith.com/app/cypress-dashboard/rundetails-65890b3c81d7400d08fa9ee5?branch=master&workflowId=13324385763&attempt=1" target="_blank">Cypress dashboard</a>. > Tags: `@tag.Sanity` > Spec: > <hr>Fri, 14 Feb 2025 07:54:00 UTC <!-- end of auto-generated comment: Cypress test results --> ## Communication Should the DevRel and Marketing teams inform users about this change? - [ ] Yes - [ ] No <!-- This is an auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai --> ## Summary by CodeRabbit - **New Features** - Introduced a “Show More” option in the code editor’s command palette for additional suggestions. - Enabled default expansion for table widget panels to improve content visibility. - **Refactor** - Consolidated entity and type management for a more consistent and maintainable platform. - **Improvements** - Enhanced widget behavior with dynamic updates in dropdowns, file pickers, and map styling for a smoother user experience. <!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai --> |
||
|
Ilia
|
d6f249b42d
|
chore: add blank line eslint rule (#36369)
## Description Added ESLint rule to force blank lines between statements. Fixes #`Issue Number` _or_ Fixes `Issue URL` > [!WARNING] > _If no issue exists, please create an issue first, and check with the maintainers if the issue is valid._ ## Automation /ok-to-test tags="@tag.All" ### 🔍 Cypress test results <!-- This is an auto-generated comment: Cypress test results --> > [!CAUTION] > 🔴 🔴 🔴 Some tests have failed. > Workflow run: <https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/actions/runs/10924926728> > Commit: 34f57714a1575ee04e94e03cbcaf95e57a96c86c > <a href="https://internal.appsmith.com/app/cypress-dashboard/rundetails-65890b3c81d7400d08fa9ee5?branch=master&workflowId=10924926728&attempt=1&selectiontype=test&testsstatus=failed&specsstatus=fail" target="_blank">Cypress dashboard</a>. > Tags: @tag.All > Spec: > The following are new failures, please fix them before merging the PR: <ol> > <li>cypress/e2e/Regression/ClientSide/Anvil/AnvilModal_spec.ts > <li>cypress/e2e/Regression/ClientSide/Anvil/Widgets/AnvilButtonWidgetSnapshot_spec.ts > <li>cypress/e2e/Regression/ClientSide/Anvil/Widgets/AnvilCheckboxGroupWidgetSnapshot_spec.ts > <li>cypress/e2e/Regression/ClientSide/Anvil/Widgets/AnvilCurrencyInputWidgetSnapshot_spec.ts > <li>cypress/e2e/Regression/ClientSide/Anvil/Widgets/AnvilIconButtonWidgetSnapshot_spec.ts > <li>cypress/e2e/Regression/ClientSide/Anvil/Widgets/AnvilInlineButtonWidgetSnapshot_spec.ts > <li>cypress/e2e/Regression/ClientSide/Anvil/Widgets/AnvilInputWidgetSnapshot_spec.ts > <li>cypress/e2e/Regression/ClientSide/Anvil/Widgets/AnvilParagraphWidgetSnapshot_spec.ts > <li>cypress/e2e/Regression/ClientSide/Anvil/Widgets/AnvilPhoneInputWidgetSnapshot_spec.ts > <li>cypress/e2e/Regression/ClientSide/Anvil/Widgets/AnvilStatsWidgetSnapshot_spec.ts > <li>cypress/e2e/Regression/ClientSide/Anvil/Widgets/AnvilSwitchGroupWidgetSnapshot_spec.ts > <li>cypress/e2e/Regression/ClientSide/Anvil/Widgets/AnvilSwitchWidgetSnapshot_spec.ts > <li>cypress/e2e/Regression/ClientSide/Anvil/Widgets/AnvilTableWidgetSnapshot_spec.ts > <li>cypress/e2e/Regression/ClientSide/Anvil/Widgets/AnvilToolbarButtonWidgetSnapshot_spec.ts > <li>cypress/e2e/Regression/ClientSide/Anvil/Widgets/AnvilZoneSectionWidgetSnapshot_spec.ts</ol> > <a href="https://internal.appsmith.com/app/cypress-dashboard/identified-flaky-tests-65890b3c81d7400d08fa9ee3?branch=master" target="_blank">List of identified flaky tests</a>. > <hr>Wed, 18 Sep 2024 16:33:36 UTC <!-- end of auto-generated comment: Cypress test results --> ## Communication Should the DevRel and Marketing teams inform users about this change? - [ ] Yes - [ ] No --------- Co-authored-by: Valera Melnikov <valera@appsmith.com> |
||
|
Valera Melnikov
|
c42e0317de
|
fix: change appsmith alias (#35349)
In order to unify package names, we decided to use `@appsmith` prefix as a marker to indicate that packages belong to our codebase and that these packages are developed internally. So that we can use this prefix, we need to rename the alias of the same name. But since `@appsmith` is currently being used as an alias for `ee` folder, we have to rename the alias as the first step. Related discussion https://theappsmith.slack.com/archives/CPG2ZTXEY/p1722516279126329 EE PR — https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith-ee/pull/4801 ## Automation /ok-to-test tags="@tag.All" ### 🔍 Cypress test results <!-- This is an auto-generated comment: Cypress test results --> > [!TIP] > 🟢 🟢 🟢 All cypress tests have passed! 🎉 🎉 🎉 > Workflow run: <https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/actions/runs/10267368821> > Commit: 2b00af2d257e4d4304db0a80072afef7513de6be > <a href="https://internal.appsmith.com/app/cypress-dashboard/rundetails-65890b3c81d7400d08fa9ee5?branch=master&workflowId=10267368821&attempt=2" target="_blank">Cypress dashboard</a>. > Tags: `@tag.All` > Spec: > <hr>Tue, 06 Aug 2024 14:24:22 UTC <!-- end of auto-generated comment: Cypress test results --> ## Communication Should the DevRel and Marketing teams inform users about this change? - [ ] Yes - [x] No |
||
|
Nidhi
|
de443104f2
|
chore: rm dr ce (#34765)
Co-authored-by: brayn003 <rudra@appsmith.com> |
||
|
Apeksha Bhosale
|
54a9d06fb9
|
chore: making body and variables as optional props- 31568 (#31665)
## Description > [!TIP] > _Add a TL;DR when the description is longer than 500 words or extremely technical (helps the content team)._ > > _Please also include relevant motivation and context. List any dependencies that are required for this change. Add links to Notion, Figma or any other documents that might be relevant to the PR._ Fixes #`Issue Number` _or_ Fixes https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/31568 > [!WARNING] > _If no issue exists, please create an issue first, and check with the maintainers if the issue is valid._ ## Automation /ok-to-test tags="@tag.All" ### 🔍 Cypress test results <!-- This is an auto-generated comment: Cypress test results --> > [!IMPORTANT] > Workflow run: <https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/actions/runs/8325305172> > Commit: `ce37f05a17f494b1a5409cf79895248cc32f453f` > Cypress dashboard url: <a href="https://internal.appsmith.com/app/cypress-dashboard/rundetails-65890b3c81d7400d08fa9ee5?branch=master&workflowId=8325305172&attempt=2" target="_blank">Click here!</a> > All cypress tests have passed 🎉🎉🎉 <!-- end of auto-generated comment: Cypress test results --> |
||
|
Ankita Kinger
|
cf6c77194b
|
chore: Refactoring entity types and updating DS action create permission to fix some bugs on EE (#29573)
## Description Refactoring entity types and updating DS action create permission to fix some bugs on EE #### PR fixes following issue(s) Fixes # (issue number) #### Type of change - Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception) ## Testing #### How Has This Been Tested? - [x] Manual - [ ] JUnit - [x] Jest - [x] 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 #### 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 <!-- This is an auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai --> ## Summary by CodeRabbit - **Refactor** - Streamlined entity type naming conventions across the application for better consistency. - Enhanced type definitions for improved code clarity and maintainability. - Updated function calls to use object parameters with named properties for better readability. - **New Features** - Introduced a new entity type for module instances, expanding the application's data handling capabilities. - **Bug Fixes** - Corrected improper type assertions to ensure accurate entity recognition and processing. - **Documentation** - Added comments to clarify the non-introduction of certain dependencies in specific components. - **Style** - Adjusted import statements to align with the updated naming conventions. - **Tests** - Updated test cases to reflect changes in entity type references and assertions. <!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai --> |
||
|
ashit-rath
|
c281600ea7
|
chore: refactor create jsobject under modules (#29555)
## Description Refactor to create js objects for modules #### PR fixes following issue(s) PR for https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith-ee/pull/3095 #### 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 <!-- This is an auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai --> ## Summary by CodeRabbit - **Refactor** - Updated import paths for `JSCollectionData` and related types across various files to reflect a change in the file structure or module resolution strategy. - Exported `initialState` and `handlers` from `jsActionsReducer` to align with updated code organization. - **New Features** - Added a new entry `JSModules` to the `entitySections` object in `editorContextReducer.ts` to enhance editor context management. - **Bug Fixes** - Adjusted the `createDummyJSCollectionActions` function to include `additionalParams` and `variables` for improved action creation and initialization. - **Documentation** - No visible changes to end-user documentation in this pull request. - **Style** - No style-related changes affecting end-users in this pull request. - **Tests** - No test-related changes affecting end-users in this pull request. - **Chores** - No chore-related changes affecting end-users in this pull request. - **Revert** - No reverts affecting end-users in this pull request. <!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai --> |
||
|
ashit-rath
|
59d0f999ad
|
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 |
||
|
Apeksha Bhosale
|
0f393a2423
|
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 |
||
|
Apeksha Bhosale
|
4dc6df0013
|
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 |
||
|
srix
|
d34edec1f4
|
feat: assistive binding (#27070)
> Pull Request Template ## Description An assistive Binding feature is added. A new code editor hinter menu will pop up once three characters is pressed, and they match with any entities. This assistance is expected to help many new app builders discover binding features. PRD: [Widget binding & success](https://www.notion.so/appsmith/Widget-binding-success-bc2f559b67194891992c6163eb8ac457) UI Design : [Zeplin](https://app.zeplin.io/project/64df0f50e3f9570e8dcfc803/screen/64df0fa0e771af22508f2267) POC: [POC for Binding Success - Engineering](https://www.notion.so/appsmith/POC-for-Binding-Success-Engineering-07157e8e90c7451a850d6d054d975f36) ERD : [Engineering Requirement - Assistive Binding](https://www.notion.so/appsmith/Engineering-Requirement-Assistive-Binding-b04e41f07e3b4c998be7b8b49f8324ba) #### PR fixes following issue(s) Fixes # (issue number) When a users input within a property of a widget matches any query/api/jsobject of their application, a dropdown menu will appear with possible binding options for users to select from. #26682 When the user adds a new binding from the menu the cursor should be present in between the moustache bindings #26683 When a user toggles JS mode for the input, bindings with the cursor in between them should be present by default (incase input has no value) #26685 #### Media #### Type of change > Please delete options that are not relevant. - New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality) ## 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] Cypress > > #### Test Plan https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/issues/2507 #### Issues raised during DP testing > Link issues raised during DP testing for better visiblity and tracking (copy link from comments dropped on this PR) - [x] https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/27070#issuecomment-1710094372 - [x] https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/27070#issuecomment-1711189712 - [x] https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/27070#issuecomment-1711209028 - [x] https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/27070#issuecomment-1711214677 - [x] https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/27070#issuecomment-1711311082 - [x] https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/27070#issuecomment-1711321208 - [x] https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/27070#issuecomment-1711336112 ## 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: - [ ] [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 - [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: arunvjn <arun@appsmith.com> Co-authored-by: Favour Ohans <fohanekwu@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: Aishwarya UR <aishwarya@appsmith.com> |
||
|
Anand Srinivasan
|
9dd015a1e6
|
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  - After  - 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 |
||
|
Apeksha Bhosale
|
2b25e1e9b0
|
fix: Improving performance of JS evaluations by splitting the data tree (#21547)
## 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> |
||
|
Ivan Akulov
|
424d2f6965
|
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
|
||
|
Anand Srinivasan
|
73ba3a39c5
|
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 |
