## Description
Complete the following fixes to tests
1. Remove data-testid from ForkTemplate modal. This is because the test
case for that includes this component is going to be removed in another
[PR](https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/30160/files).
2. Remove redundant comments from BuildingBlock.test
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes#30024
#### Type of change
> Please delete options that are not relevant.
- 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
- [ ] 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 the `ForkTemplate` modal rendering logic.
- **Tests**
- Removed a test case related to the fork modal interaction.
- **Style**
- Removed `data-testid` attribute from the `ModalBody` component for
cleaner UI code.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
## Description
This pull request fixes a layout issue in the template component. The
issue was causing the modal body to overflow and the select dropdown to
not match the width of the parent container. The changes include
updating the style of the modal body and adding a data-testid attribute
to the modal body element.
* This got introduced in #30014
#### 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
- **Refactor**
- Improved the `ForkTemplate` user interface by removing unnecessary
outer elements.
- Enhanced testing capabilities with new identifiers for the `ModalBody`
component.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
## Description
Add unit tests for the building block card component
`BuildingBlock`
✓ renders building block details correctly
✓ navigates to the template URL when clicked
✓ triggers onForkTemplateClick when the fork button is clicked
✓ does not trigger onForkTemplateClick when the button is hidden
✓ opens the fork modal when the fork button is clicked
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes # (issue number)
#### Type of change
- 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
- [ ] 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
- [ ] 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**
- Introduced a unit test suite for the `BuildingBlock` component to
ensure functionality and stability.
- **Refactor**
- Updated the `ForkTemplate` component to improve testability and
consistency in the DOM structure.
- **Tests**
- Added tests for user interactions within the `BuildingBlock`
component, such as navigation and modal interactions.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
## 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
This PR includes changes for renaming design system package. Since we
are building new package for the refactored design system components,
the old package is renaming to design-system-old.
Fixes#19536
## Type of change
- New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
- Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing
functionality to not work as expected)
## 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
- [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
* fix: Form message component link issue
* removed the inverted flag for testing
* use updated design system
* category.tertiary -> category.secondary
* fix: Made changes to pass action link element to design system component - formMessage
* chore: update design-system version to access new tertiary button styles
* chore: update design-system version to use blacks instead of grays
* chore: bump design-system version to use buttons with explicit background color
* Remove rules that mess with border, background, text color on StyledPropertyPaneButton
* chore: update design-system version to use updated button categories across all ads components
Co-authored-by: Albin <albin@appsmith.com>
