## Description
Ref:
https://theappsmith.slack.com/archives/C040LHZN03V/p1700206435426579
## Background
At the start of the new appsmith server, we register the instanceId with
cloud services by invoking the cloud services api. For some of the
instances, if this register api call didn't go through, the cloud
services db will not have the instanceId.
While connecting to GSheets, we do a check if the request is coming from
a valid registered instance, and if it is not present this api fails.
The appsmith mongo database config collection, keeps a record of whether
this instance was registered or not.
In some scenarios, the appsmith_registered field shows that the instance
is registered but it is not as instanceId is missing in CS, i.e. the
appsmith server has the info that the instance is registered with CS but
the CS db has not registered the instance.
> This PR triggers the re-registration flow to the cloud services if the
instance is not registered.
> When calling the google sheets API to cloud services, if the response
received is 403 FORBIDDEN, it indicates the instance is not registered,
in which scenario we retrigger the registeration flow and call the CS
again.
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes#28952
#### Media
> DEMO
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1cVluIAQlzxwb7A2bgBBMJ0I4awSV6fKp/view?usp=sharing
#### Type of change
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
## Testing
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [x] Manual
- [ ] JUnit
- [ ] 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
#### 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
## Automation
/ok-to-test tags=""
### 🔍 Cypress test results
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment: Cypress test results -->
> [!CAUTION]
> If you modify the content in this section, you are likely to disrupt
the CI result for your PR.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: Cypress test results -->
This is to abide by the Databricks standard practice which expects the
user agent tag to be set automatically and shouldnt be configurable by
end user (in this case developers creating datasources on top of
Databricks). The user agent tag would be set to Appsmith.
The point is to prevent unfortunate field name problems like this:
https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/31760/files.
This NodeJS script does a very rudimentary analysis on all Java files,
with a few regular expressions, and finds anomalies. As such, since it's
not very smart, it's quite strict. I intend to make it a little more
strict in the coming days, but it's a start.
It's not hooked into any processes/CI yet, but that will also come in
next. Since it's not very smart, it actually runs quite fast (.8s on
EE).
The script also doesn't exit with a non-zero exit code when it finds a
problem. Also will be solved as part of integrating it into CI.
This PR gets finer control into what fields are allowed in
request-body-only, vs what's allowed in response-body-only. This leaves
the fields to separately controlled regarding what can go into the
database and what can't.
[Slack
thread](https://theappsmith.slack.com/archives/CPQNLFHTN/p1710125307810949).
Migration takes ~24s on release, and ~210s (3.5 mins) on prod.
That makes this a slightly long migration, so I'd like reviewers'
opinion on if this PR's changes are worth dealing with that migration
time.
This change is needed in the Postgres branch. Some of the fields on
this, especially the fact that the `id` field has a persistence-specific
`@Id` annotation, is throwing Hibernate off in weird ways that I didn't
spend much time diving into. Removing `BaseDomain` on `Layout`, was a
much simpler/smaller change than that, and it got Hibernate to behave
again.
These APIs are getting deprecated and are setting up for removal soon.
This PR changes such API uses to ones that aren't deprecated. This is
needed towards upgrading Spring to get rid of a few CVEs on Appsmith
image.
## Description
Handling unexpected errors in trigger requests in Appsmith AI plugin
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes #
#### Type of change
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [x] Manual
## Automation
/ok-to-test tags="@tag.Datasource"
## 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:
- [ ] [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
- **Bug Fixes**
- Improved error handling for file uploading and listing to enhance
stability and user experience.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai
--><!-- This is an auto-generated comment: Cypress test results -->
> [!IMPORTANT]
> Workflow run:
<https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/actions/runs/8245477758>
> Commit: `8a36d1b0216f86c18ebee541fbad2fec9e66dfb9`
> Cypress dashboard url: <a
href="https://internal.appsmith.com/app/cypress-dashboard/rundetails-65890b3c81d7400d08fa9ee5?branch=master&workflowId=8245477758&attempt=1"
target="_blank">Click here!</a>
> All cypress tests have passed 🎉🎉🎉
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: Cypress test results -->
Removing the `BridgeQuery.or` API since
1. it reads confusing. Are the passed-in items applied with an `or`, or
the current queries applied with the parameters with an `or`. Unlike
`and` method, this difference with `or` can change the meaning of the
query drastically.
2. it doesn't translate very well into Postgres world. Multiple hoops to
manage the same API, just not worth it.
The static `Bridge.or` looks, reads, and works much better. That's the
suggested alternative for this.
## Description
> code split methods to support native triggering of workflows.
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes # (issue number)
> 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
- [ ] 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
- **New Features**
- Enhanced the action collection view with additional parameters for
better access control and view mode handling.
- Improved action execution process by enabling the setting of
auto-generated headers dynamically, enhancing the flexibility and
customization of action executions.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
Co-authored-by: Nilesh Sarupriya <20905988+nsarupr@users.noreply.github.com>
Reverts appsmithorg/appsmith#31623
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai
-->
## Summary by CodeRabbit
- **Refactor**
- Updated method signatures and parameters related to OAuth2
authentication to simplify and enhance the redirect URL population
process.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
## Description
> Datasource Controller's getTokenRequestUrl() is currently bounded to
Pages.
> This is a code split to support generation of token request url for
other contexts like modules and workflows.
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes [[Bug]: Authenticated API & Authenticated graphQL API with OAuth2
throws 404 error in
workflows](https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/31554)
#### 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
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
## Testing
>
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [x] JUnit
Existing test cases should pass.
- [ ] 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
- **New Features**
- Updated OAuth2 authorization process to use context-specific
parameters for enhanced flexibility and security.
- **Refactor**
- Modified `getTokenRequestUrl` and
`getAuthorizationCodeURLForGenericOAuth2` methods to accept
`contextType` and `contextId`, improving the OAuth2 flow.
- Adjusted logging and method parameters across various classes for
consistency with new OAuth2 process.
- **Tests**
- Updated test cases to reflect changes in method parameter orders and
OAuth2 authorization enhancements.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
Co-authored-by: Nilesh Sarupriya <20905988+nsarupr@users.noreply.github.com>
This PR fixes all uses of double brace initialization, with ordinary
normal code.
It is usually advised to avoid Double brace initialization, especially
for building collections as it can cause very hard-to-troubleshoot bugs
with systems that use reflection a lot, like Spring, Hibernate, Jackson,
etc.
Almost every Java linter out there recommends to avoid this.
This can be configured in IntelliJ to show up as an error with the
following configuration. Please **please** do this.
## Description
Added server side create action instrumentation for following cases:
Action | Source | Frontend/Backend | Tests Added?
-- | -- | -- | --
Create Action / query from any other place in app (entity explorer /
datasource preview / ombinar) | self | source sent from frontend |
Cypress
Drag a table widget → Click connect data → Select datasource → select
table → click on connect data | one-click-binding | source sent from
frontend | Cypress
Generate CRUD triggered from new page menu or datasource preview |
generate-crud-page | source set in backend | No
When page is cloned | clone-page | source set in backend | No
When application is forked | fork-application | source set in backend |
No
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes#31173
> 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
- 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
- [ ] Jest
- [x] 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
- [ ] 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
- **New Features**
- Enhanced event tracking capabilities by introducing an enumeration to
track the source of action creation for analytics.
- **Enhancements**
- Improved action creation flow by specifying the source in various
components, aiding in precise analytics and debugging.
- Streamlined analytics properties method across services for
consistency and simplicity.
- **Bug Fixes**
- Adjusted assertion logic in Cypress tests to validate the source of
action creation accurately, ensuring reliability in automated testing.
- **Refactor**
- Simplified method signatures and logic in server-side analytics
handling for better maintainability.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
---------
Co-authored-by: “sneha122” <“sneha@appsmith.com”>
Managed to remove the `Criteria` and `where` imported from MongoDB APIs.
The `Bridge` API calls should work the same on Postgres as well as here.
We'll be moving more repository methods over to this API soon.
Notice that the `Update` import is still there. Bridge API for `Update`
objects is also almost ready, and is coming up soon.
## Description
When a page is added from template using the new page via template CTA,
the customjs lib used is not saved. This is because of the condition
used in Import Export flow for append to application flow.
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes#31372
#### Type of change
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
## 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
#### 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
- **New Features**
- Enhanced import functionality to better handle Custom JavaScript
Libraries, ensuring smoother re-imports and updates.
- **Tests**
- Added new tests to verify the improved handling and integrity of
Custom JavaScript Libraries during the import process.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
## Description
> Add context based authentication instead of being bounded by page.
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes # (issue number)
> if no issue exists, please create an issue and ask the maintainers
about this first
>
>
#### Media
> N/A
#### Type of change
- Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception)
## Testing
>
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [x] Manual
#### Test Plan
> N/A
#### Issues raised during DP testing
> N/A
## 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
- [ ] 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
- **New Features**
- Enhanced request handling for Appsmith tokens with additional
parameters for broader context.
- Streamlined integration processes with new data transfer objects.
- **Refactor**
- Consolidated integration functionalities for improved code
reusability.
- Optimized authentication process with updated method signatures.
- **Documentation**
- Updates in user and developer interactions with the API, focusing on
token requests and integrations.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
---------
Co-authored-by: Nilesh Sarupriya <20905988+nsarupr@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Ayush Pahwa <ayushpahwa96@gmail.com>
## Description
> Code split and refactor to support action execution without
permissions
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes [[Task]: Permission less way of executing a workflow trigger query
securely](https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/30231)
#### 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?
- [x] Manual
Manually tested the execution of an Action (with and without datasource)
by a curl command on a user who is in no way associated to the
workspace.
- [x] JUnit
Existing unit tests should pass.
#### 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
- [ ] 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
- **New Features**
- Introduced a feature to optionally bypass permission checks in
specific scenarios, enhancing flexibility in operations.
- **Refactor**
- Updated method signatures across several classes to support
conditional permission checks.
- **Tests**
- Added new tests to validate the behavior of permission retrieval with
the bypass option.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
---------
Co-authored-by: Nilesh Sarupriya <20905988+nsarupr@users.noreply.github.com>
## Description
The primary aim of this feature is to empower users by enabling them to
seamlessly integrate building blocks along with their associated
components (queries, JavaScript, datasources, and widgets) into their
existing applications through drag-and-drop functionality.
This PR adds change to create a Partial IE engine to download the json
file from CS, then add all DS, JS, Queries and Custom JS Libs. Also
handle the name refactoring in js, queries and dsl and then return
modified widget dsl to frontend.
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes#31315
#### Media
#### Type of change
- New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
## Testing
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [ ] Manual
- [ ] JUnit
#### Test Plan
https://www.notion.so/appsmith/Test-planning-Drag-and-drop-building-blocks-030b0a5e944a478c9598ad65ba5096e2?pm=c
#### 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
- **New Features**
- Added `BuildingBlockDTO` import.
- Added `ApplicationTemplateService` and `WidgetRefactorUtil` services.
- Added `importBuildingBlock` method.
- Introduced partial import functionality for building blocks.
- Added capability to refactor widget and action names during import to
avoid name clashes.
- **Enhancements**
- Improved logic for importing resources within a page.
- Enhanced name refactoring in DSL bindings to ensure consistency across
the application.
- **Refactor**
- Updated methods to handle new import structures and services more
efficiently.
- **Tests**
- Added new tests to verify partial imports and name refactoring
functionalities.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
1. This is unused.
2. Such perma-caching is better owned by the repository, whose data is
being cached. For example, `UserRepository*` in case of
`getAnonymousUser`. Having all cached resources in one place doesn't
scale. Besides, doing it this way means we have do hit the DB directly
with `mongoOperations`, because injecting any repository beans will
cause cyclic injections.
## Description
Mutual TLS, or mTLS for short, is a method for mutual authentication.
mTLS ensures that the parties at each end of a network connection are
who they claim to be by verifying that they both have the correct
private key.
This PR adds support for mTLS for postgres datasource. Unlike the
standard way of storing the certs in disk, we store them in the
database. This has been achieved via the custom implementation of SSL
Factory. The postgres driver support passing the custom ssl factory
while creating connection, which then will be used for handling and
establishing the connection.
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes#31326
#### Type of change
- New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
## Testing
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [ ] Manual
#### 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
- **New Features**
- Enhanced the Postgres plugin to support SSL certificate validation for
secure database connections. Users can now select between `VERIFY_CA`
and `VERIFY_FULL` modes for SSL verification, ensuring a higher level of
security for database communications.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
Migration the Bridge APIs to static+non-static versions for a more
fluent API, and to make it extendable to get `Bridge.or` and
`Bridge.and`.
We're also making the API generified, which isn't strictly needed here,
but is needed for the `CriteriaBuilder` API on Postgres.
PR adds assertj to the plugin modules as well so we can write better
assertions there. We're changing just one test, but to illustrate as an
example.
With the previous assertion used here, failure messages looked like
this:
```
Expected <true>, but got <false>.
```
But with the better assertions introduced in this PR, we should see
something like:
```
Expected `Random unexpected string` to end with `Host not allowed.`
```
Which should help us much better in troubleshooting.
1. We remove the `mongoTemplate` and replace it with `mongoOperations`,
which we get from the base impl class anyway. One less thing to port.
2. We also move the actual _publish_ logic to a separate protected
method so it can be reused in the EE repo impl class, which has this
logic duplicated.
Instead of `upsert`, we `update` first, which is arguably the most used
operation in this context, and if that fails, then we attempt an insert.
We're not expecting a performance hit, since most operations here would
be an actual `update` only.
Instead of `upsert`, we `update` first, which is arguably the most used
operation in this context, and if that fails, then we attempt an insert.
We're not expecting a performance hit, since most operations here would
be an actual `update` only.
cherry picked from commit 75d2f2a8c4,
which was accidentally pushed to `release` branch.
The current `TestResultLoggerExtension` extension only finds failed
tests from the server module, and not from any of the plugin or other
modules.
To fix this, this PR collects failed tests using the Surefire XML test
reports already generated by the `mvn test` command.
This reverts commit 5647916478.
This seems to have broken our ability to re-run failed tests on server
workflow. We'll bring the changes back after we figure out how to not
lose that capability.
