## 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
> 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
- Replaced the property `templateBottomRow` with `templateHeight` as a
first step to remove the dependency of fixed layout specific position
property from List widget.
- Remove appPositioningType and isMobile props from widget DataTree.
- Include width and height as `componentHeight` and `componentWidth` in
widget DataTree.
- Update ListWidget, ListWidgetV2, TableWidget and TableWidgetV2 to use
the componentHeight prop in derivedProps calculation to get pageSize.
## Description
- Remove the config objects from widget and config maps from the widget
factory.
- Introduce methods in widget development API to dynamically fetch this
items.
- freeze the widget configuration.
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/26008
> if no issue exists, please create an issue and ask the maintainers
about this first
>
>
#### Media
> A video or a GIF is preferred. when using Loom, don’t embed because it
looks like it’s a GIF. instead, just link to the video
>
>
#### Type of change
> Please delete options that are not relevant.
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
- New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
- Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing
functionality to not work as expected)
- Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception)
- This change requires a documentation update
>
>
>
## 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
- [ ] 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
- [x] 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
- [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
Fixes#24663
**Summary**
Widget should have access to evaluation errors because that allows it to
make a decision on how to handle errors in property pane and give users
a more visual cue to take a corrective action for fixing errors in the
property pane.
The current pop up isn't too conspicuous to notice and also doesn't
appear when the user deselects the property pane and reselects it.
**Why should this be worked on?**
This aligns with Widget Development API. Accessing the evaluation errors
from evaluations isn't recommended because it is an internal property.
An internal property is not advisable to be used given our roadmap for
community widgets.
Showing default data instead may not be the right way to handle errors
in every use case.
Loom Video describing the requirement :
https://www.loom.com/share/04c228b06bb34b97894e345b46cf0abe?sid=f855ac90-74fa-4ee3-b882-ec70b1b2d9bf
## 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
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>
* initial commit
* props hoc
* changes
* removed ignores and withWidgetProps
* added extra props to canvasStructure
* widget props changes
* list widget changes
* reintroduced widget props hook and other refactors
* remove warnings
* added deepequal for childWidgets selector
* fix global hotkeys and tabs widget jest test
* fix main container test fix
* fixed view mode width
* fix form widget values
* minor fix
* fix skeleton
* form widget validity fix
* jest test fix
* fixed tests: GlobalHotkeys, Tabs, CanvasSelectectionArena and fixed main container rendering
* minor fix
* minor comments
* reverted commented code
* simplified structure, selective redux state updates and other inconsistencies
* fix junit test cases
* stop form widget from force rendering children
* fix test case
* random commit to re run tests
* update isFormValid prop only if it exists
* detangling circular dependency
* fixing cypress tests
* cleaned up code
* clean up man cnavas props and fix jest cases
* fix rendering order of child widgets for canvas
* fix dropdown reset spec
* adding comments
* cleaning up unwanted code
* fix multiselect widget on deploy
* adressing review comments
* addressing minor review comment changes
* destructuring modal widget child and fix test case
* fix communityIssues cypress spec
* rewrite isVisible logic to match previous behaviour
* merging widget props with component props before checking isVisible
* adressing review comments for modal widget's isVisible
Co-authored-by: rahulramesha <rahul@appsmith.com>
