31a091efdb
2 Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Abhinav Jha
|
acfb1f4b7a
|
chore: Add SAVE_ACTION analytics event (#25997)
## Description
- This PR renames the `SAVE_QUERY` and `SAVE_API` events to a generic
`SAVE_ACTION` analytics event.
- The new event will include the following new properties
- `originalActionId` - The `originalActionId` of the action from which
this action was copied or the `id` action from which this action was
copied.
- `hash` - A unique hash of the `actionConfiguration` of this action
- `actionType` - The plugin type for this action
- This PR also fixes an issue where the `originalActionId` was not set
correctly when an action was copied
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes #25971
#### Type of change
- Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception)
## Testing
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [x] Manual
- [x] Jest
- [ ] Cypress
#### Test Plan
#### Issues raised during DP testing
|
||
|
subratadeypappu
|
a480d4ff2e
|
feat: Store originalActionId as part of Action DTO for copied action (#25011)
## Description To measure the impact of query modules in Appsmith. We need to track the time a user takes to edit a copied query. Today, we do not have a mechanism to understand if a query in question is a copied query. To fix this, the data model of the Query action needs to change to include the `originalQueryId` if a query is, in fact, a copied query. - [ ] When a query is first copied, there will be no `originalActionId` in the action object. In this scenario, the client will populate the `originalActionId` field and call the POST API to create the copied query. - [ ] If the query is already a copied query, the client will duplicate the value of the `originalActionId` when calling the POST API to create the copied query. |POST|`/api/v1/actions`| ----------|------| ### [Related discussion on Notion](https://www.notion.so/appsmith/Backend-dependency-for-modules-instrumentation-889462d461844745be0a2599c8555ca5) #### PR fixes following issue(s) Fixes #24734 #### 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 - [x] 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 - [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 - [ ] 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 > Add a TL;DR when description is extra long (helps content team) > > Please include a summary of the changes and which issue has been fixed. Please also include relevant motivation > and context. List any dependencies that are required for this change > > Links to Notion, Figma or any other documents that might be relevant to the PR > > #### 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 - [ ] 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 --------- Co-authored-by: Abhinav Jha <abhinav@appsmith.com> |