Protei/PromucFlow_constructor
2
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions 2 Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
13,705 Commits 1 Branch 0 Tags 507 MiB
1ab630f082
Commit Graph

10 Commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
Rishabh Rathod
a2a881991e
chore: Add analytics for JSObject variable (#24740) 
## Description

Add analytics for JSObject variable creation and mutation event. 

#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes #24038


#### Type of change

- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)

## Testing

#### How Has This Been Tested?

#### Test Plan

#### Issues raised during DP testing

## Checklist:
#### Dev activity
- [ ] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [ ] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [ ] My changes generate no new warnings
- [ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [ ] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag


#### QA activity:
- [ ] [Speedbreak
features](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#speedbreakers-)
have been covered
- [ ] Test plan covers all impacted features and [areas of
interest](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#areas-of-interest-)
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by project stakeholders and other
QA members
- [ ] Manually tested functionality on DP
- [ ] We had an implementation alignment call with stakeholders post QA
Round 2
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by SDET/manual QA
- [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after Cypress tests were reviewed
- [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after JUnit tests were reviewed
 2023-06-23 16:12:27 +05:30
Favour Ohanekwu
5db37b871e
chore: Log JS Function execution (#24163) 2023-06-09 06:41:07 +01:00
Rishabh Rathod
d6372d0b81
feat: JSObject variable as a state (JSObject variable mutation) (#19926) 
Fixes #19653 
Fixes #14568 
Fixes #17199
Fixes #14989

In this PR, we introduce a new feature in JSObject where the `variables`
are now state and widgets are reactive to the change in the variable
value.
- It means that `JSObject.myVar1 = "Hello world"` would show `Hello
world` where ever a binding `{{JSObject.myVar1}}` is used.

Further changes
- JSObject run functionality, executes all the functions in async
evaluation.
    - `executeSyncJS` flow is removed 
-  `resolvedFunctions` state is moved to JSCollection class.
- unEval JSObject value i.e., currentJSCollectionState is moved to
JSCollection class.
- `evalTreeWithChanges` is introduced - A new flow to trigger evaluation
from the worker and send the updated dataTree to mainThread.
- This would open up a new possibility of features in evaluation
mentioned
[here](https://www.notion.so/appsmith/RFC-Dependent-Property-in-Widgets-f3b29ad652b549dd8c49189f48dbbc4b)
- Introduction of `updateDataTreeHandler` to accept new dataTree from
the worker.
## Type of change

- New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)

## How Has This Been Tested?

### Jest Test
- `Mutation.test.ts` 
- `JSVariableProxy.test.ts`
-  `removeProxy.test.ts`

### Cypress test
- Mutation with 
   - numbers
   - array
   - object
   - map
   - set

### Test Plan
- https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/issues/2186

### Issues raised during DP testing

- https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/19926#issuecomment-1453275688
- https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/19926#issuecomment-1478975487
- https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/19926#issuecomment-1482929425
- https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/19926#issuecomment-1486611858

Co-authored-by: Rimil Dey <rimildeyjsr@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Rimil Dey <rimil@appsmith.com>
Co-authored-by: arunvjn <32433245+arunvjn@users.noreply.github.com>
 2023-04-07 13:11:36 +05:30
Favour Ohanekwu
b80b0ca3fa
feat: show lint errors in async functions bound to sync fields (#21187) 
## Description

This PR improves the error resolution journey for users. Lint warnings
are added to async JS functions which are bound to data fields (sync
fields).

- JSObjects are "linted" by individual properties (as opposed to being
"linted" as a whole)
- Only edited jsobject properties get "linted", improving jsObject
linting by ~35%.(This largely depends on the size of the JSObject)
<img width="500" alt="Screenshot 2023-04-03 at 11 17 45"
src="https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/46670083/229482424-233f3950-ffec-46f5-8c42-680dff6a412f.png">
<img width="500" alt="Screenshot 2023-03-14 at 11 26 00"
src="https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/46670083/224975572-b2d8d404-aac6-43fb-be14-20edf7c56117.png">
<img width="500" alt="Screenshot 2023-03-14 at 11 41 11"
src="https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/46670083/224975952-c40848b1-69d8-489d-9b62-24127ea1a2f1.png">

Fixes #20289
Fixes #20008


## Type of change

- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)


## How Has This Been Tested?

- CYPRESS
- JEST

### Test Plan
> Add Testsmith test cases links that relate to this PR

### Issues raised during DP testing
> Link issues raised during DP testing for better visiblity and tracking
(copy link from comments dropped on this PR)


## Checklist:
### Dev activity
- [ ] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [ ] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [ ] My changes generate no new warnings
- [ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [ ] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag


### QA activity:
- [ ] Test plan has been approved by relevant developers
- [x] Test plan has been peer reviewed by QA
- [x] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by either SDET or
manual QA
- [ ] Organized project review call with relevant stakeholders after
Round 1/2 of QA
- [ ] Added Test Plan Approved label after reveiwing all Cypress test
 2023-04-03 16:11:15 +05:30
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>
 2023-03-20 16:34:02 +05:30
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
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>
 2023-03-16 17:11:47 +05:30
Druthi Polisetty
bf3502166b
fix: Error log on a widget property not clearing out when the widget property is deleted (#20486) 
## Description
fix: Error log on a widget property not clearing out when the widget
property is deleted

Fixes #12894 

## Type of change
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)


## How Has This Been Tested?
- Cypress

### Test Plan
> Add Testsmith test cases links that relate to this PR

### Issues raised during DP testing
> Link issues raised during DP testing for better visiblity and tracking
(copy link from comments dropped on this PR)


## Checklist:
### Dev activity
- [ ] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [ ] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [ ] My changes generate no new warnings
- [ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [ ] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag


### QA activity:
- [ ] Test plan has been approved by relevant developers
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by QA
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by either SDET or
manual QA
- [ ] Organized project review call with relevant stakeholders after
Round 1/2 of QA
- [ ] Added Test Plan Approved label after reveiwing all Cypress test
 2023-02-21 09:57:56 +05:30
arunvjn
1d9d5bb197
fix: access outer scope variables inside callbacks (#20168) 
## Description
Any platform function that accepts a callback were unable to access the
variables declared in its parent scopes. This was a implementation miss
when we originally designed platform functions and again when we turned
almost every platform function into a Promise. This PR fixes this
limitation along with some other edge cases.

- Access outer scope variables inside the callback of run, postMessage,
setInterval, getGeoLocation and watchGeolocation functions.
- Fixes certain edge cases where functions with callbacks when called
inside the then block doesn't get executed. Eg `showAlert.then(() => /*
Doesn't execute */ Api1.run(() => {}))`
- Changes the implementation of all the platform function in appsmith to
maintain the execution metadata (info on from where a function was
invoked, event associated with it etc)

#### Refactor changes
- Added a new folder **_fns_** that would now hold all the platform
functions.
- Introduced a new ExecutionMetadata singleton class that is now
responsible for hold all the meta data related to the current
evaluation.
- Remove TRIGGER_COLLECTOR array where all callback based platform
functions were batched and introduced an Event Emitter based
implementation to handle batched fn calls.
- All callback based functions now emits event when invoked. These
events have handlers attached to the TriggerEmitter object. These
handler does the job of batching these invocations and telling the main
thread. It also ensures that platform fn calls that gets triggered out
the the context of a request/response cycle work.

#### Architecture
<img width="751" alt="Screenshot 2023-02-07 at 10 04 26"
src="https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/32433245/217259200-5eac71bc-f0d3-4d3c-9b69-2a8dc81351bc.png">

Fixes #13156
Fixes #20225 

## Type of change
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
- Refactor

## How Has This Been Tested?
- Jest
- Cypress
- Manual


### Test Plan
  - [ ] https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/issues/2181
  - [ ] https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/issues/2182
- [ ] Post message -
https://appsmith-git-chore-outer-scope-variable-access-get-appsmith.vercel.app/app/post-msg-app/page1-635fcfba2987b442a739b938/edit
- [ ] Apps:
https://appsmith-git-chore-outer-scope-variable-access-get-appsmith.vercel.app/app/earworm-1/home-630c9d85b4658d0f257c4987/edit
- [ ]
https://appsmith-git-chore-outer-scope-variable-access-get-appsmith.vercel.app/app/automation-test-cases/page-1-630c6b90d4ecd573f6bb01e9/edit#0hmn8m90ei

### Issues raised during DP testing
> Link issues raised during DP testing for better visiblity and tracking
(copy link from comments dropped on this PR)

## Checklist:
### Dev activity
- [x] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [x] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] My changes generate no new warnings
- [x] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [x] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag


### QA activity:
- [ ] Test plan has been approved by relevant developers
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by QA
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by either SDET or
manual QA
- [ ] Organized project review call with relevant stakeholders after
Round 1/2 of QA
- [ ] Added Test Plan Approved label after reviewing all Cypress test
 2023-02-12 00:03:20 +05:30
Favour Ohanekwu
95a8daf6b9
fix: Handle clone errors in async executions (#20097) 
## Description


Fixes #19982 

## Type of change

- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)


## How Has This Been Tested?
WIP

### Test Plan
> Add Testsmith test cases links that relate to this PR

### Issues raised during DP testing
> Link issues raised during DP testing for better visiblity and tracking
(copy link from comments dropped on this PR)


## Checklist:
### Dev activity
- [ ] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [ ] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [ ] My changes generate no new warnings
- [ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [ ] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag


### QA activity:
- [ ] Test plan has been approved by relevant developers
- [x] Test plan has been peer reviewed by QA
- [x] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by either SDET or
manual QA
- [ ] Organized project review call with relevant stakeholders after
Round 1/2 of QA
- [x] Added Test Plan Approved label after reveiwing all Cypress test

---------

Co-authored-by: Aishwarya UR <aishwarya@appsmith.com>
 2023-01-28 14:12:11 +01:00
Rishabh Rathod
ea5a397f50
chore: Refactor for JSFunction execution auditLogs (#19671) 
## Description

As auditLog related Code refactor for EE auditLog changes.

- Moving evalWorkerActionSaga to new file
- Created JSFunctionExecutionSaga & postJSFunctionExecutionLog
   - logic for the functionality of it would be added in EE.
- Made required changes in the JSProxy file to send functionName as a
parameter.
## Type of change

Code refactor


## How Has This Been Tested?

- Manual
- Jest
- Cypress


## Checklist:
### Dev activity
- [x] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] My changes generate no new warnings
- [ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [x] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag


### QA activity:
- [ ] Test plan has been approved by relevant developers
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by QA
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by either SDET or
manual QA
- [ ] Organized project review call with relevant stakeholders after
Round 1/2 of QA
- [ ] Added Test Plan Approved label after reveiwing all Cypress test
 2023-01-16 17:26:18 +05:30