Protei/PromucFlow_constructor
2
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions 2 Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
15,053 Commits 1 Branch 0 Tags 507 MiB
0f393a2423
Commit Graph

3 Commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
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
 2023-10-10 18:02:17 +05:30
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
 2023-09-29 16:12:14 +05:30
Favour Ohanekwu
e6f2dcacde
feat: Improve Linting performance (#23865) 
## 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 #23447 
Fixes #23166
Fixes #24194 
Fixes #23720 
Fixes #23868 
Fixes #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>
 2023-07-05 14:34:03 +01:00