343395ef5e
31 Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Apeksha Bhosale
|
4dc6df0013
|
chore: query module evaluation (#27660)
> 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 |
||
|
Favour Ohanekwu
|
e37d3b8dba
|
feat: Remove Action/Query/JS data from unevalTree (#27056)
## Description
This PR reduces the size of the unevalTree by removing action/query/js
function data from it. This improves the performance of Apps by
1. Reducing the overall time for generating dataTree diffs
2. Decreasing the time taken to generate allKeys
3. Reducing the number of nodes in the dependency graph thereby
improving dependency graph operations like
- Sorting dependencies
- Adding nodes to the dep graph
### Performance
Release
<img width="294" alt="Screenshot 2023-09-27 at 20 22 31"
src="https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/assets/46670083/df4667e5-33c3-44c6-bfd4-a170edaa43b8">
DP
<img width="304" alt="Screenshot 2023-09-27 at 20 24 16"
src="https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/assets/46670083/598d4a2d-9a32-4bcf-81e7-25f178f779d5">
37.8% improvement in worker scripting time for fairly large App.
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes #23570
#### Type of change
- New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
#### 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
1. Validating the Crude app/ api query and JS object
2. Validating the chart/table/Select/Tree select for Query and API
#### 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
|
||
|
arunvjn
|
e9ec8d227f
|
feat: Added support for ESM builds of custom JS libraries (#26671)
## Description Appsmith so far could only support UMD builds of any JS library. This meant that users would have to figure a compatible UMD build that works with Appsmith and test if works within Appsmith. Most libraries on jsDelivr have ESM builds shipped out of the box and support these libraries should take away the UMD pain from the users. #### PR fixes following issue(s) Fixes #26424 > #### 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 - New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality) > > ## Testing > #### How Has This Been Tested? - [x] Manual - [x] Cypress > > #### Test Plan - [x] Installation/uninstallation - [x] lint error check post uninstall - [x] Installation/uninstallation on git connected app - [x] edit & view mode check - [x] incorrect URL format > > #### Issues raised during DP testing None **caveat** - Libraries that require to be run on worker will fail eg: https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/@javfres/speech-generator@1.0.5/+esm > > > ## 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: - [x] [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 --------- Co-authored-by: Aishwarya UR <aishwarya@appsmith.com> |
||
|
Vemparala Surya Vamsi
|
ec922d1366
|
chore: send diff updates from worker (#24933)
## Description - Optimisation around evaluation updates to the state - Updates generation logic moved from main thread to worker thread - The diff between previous state and next state is less exacting to limit the number of updates - Logic to compress similar updates to reduce the diff updates sent from worker thread to main thread - Memoisation fixes and some selector optimisation for improved performance. #### PR fixes following issue(s) Fixes #24866 #### 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 - [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 - [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: - [ ] [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 |
||
|
Favour Ohanekwu
|
b7ca44b252
|
feat: Remove async/sync differentiation from Appsmith (#25399)
## Description This PR removes the differentiation between async and sync js functions in Appsmith - All JS functions can run on page load - All JS functions can request confirmation before executing #### PR fixes following issue(s) Fixes #25176 Fixes #25065 Fixes #15560 Fixes #15273 Fixes #12639 Fixes #14229 Fixes #13888 ### Latest DP https://ce-25399.dp.appsmith.com/ ### Performance <img width="748" alt="Screenshot 2023-08-04 at 11 05 50" src="https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/assets/46670083/580b2091-7ee7-4845-b7bf-ca76bc3e6c1f"> #### 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 - [x] Cypress > > #### Test Plan > https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/issues/2455 > > #### 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-) - [x] Test plan has been peer reviewed by project stakeholders and other QA members - [x] Manually tested functionality on DP - [x] 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: Nidhi <nidhi@appsmith.com> |
||
|
Rishabh Rathod
|
55985c2e08
|
fix: revalidation logic (#25420)
## Description Debugger logs were only updated according to the evaluation order earlier this led to an issue as after revalidation we need to update the debugger errors. #### PR fixes following issue(s) Fixes #24905 #### Type of change - Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue) ## Testing #### Test Plan - Validation sanity test #### 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 - [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 |
||
|
Druthi Polisetty
|
2fc20cfe8e
|
feat: widget property setters (#23441)
## Description
- This PR adds setter methods to update widget property
programmatically.
Example:-
`Input1.setText("setter methods are cool!");`
Docs link :
https://docs.appsmith.com/reference/widgets
For any selected widget check the `Methods` section
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes
#### Type of change
- New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
## Testing
>
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [x] Manual
- [x] Jest
- [x] Cypress
>
>
#### Test Plan
https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/issues/2409
#### Issues raised during DP testing
- [x] [Errors are not logged in the
debugger](https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/23441#issuecomment-1564017346)
separate GitHub issue
https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/24609
- [x]
https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/23441#issuecomment-1564155545
( `setVisibility("false")` )
- [x]
https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/23441#issuecomment-1580525843
- [x]
https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/23441#issuecomment-1576582825
- Blocker for testing
- [x]
https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/23441#issuecomment-1577956441
- [x]
https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/23441#issuecomment-1577930108
- Not a issue (lint error query)
- [x]
https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/23441#issuecomment-1593471791
- [x]
https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/23441#issuecomment-1591440488
- [x]
https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/23441#issuecomment-1586747864
- [x]
https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/23441#issuecomment-1596738201
- [x]
https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/23441#issuecomment-1598541537
- [x]
https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/23441#issuecomment-1611413076
- [x]
https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/23441#issuecomment-1612621567
- [ ]
https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/23441#issuecomment-1619654507
- [ ]
https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/23441#issuecomment-1621256722
>
>
## 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/Test-plan-implementation#speedbreaker-features-to-consider-for-every-change)
have been covered
- [x] Test plan covers all impacted features and [areas of
interest](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans/_edit#areas-of-interest)
- [x] 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: Rishabh Rathod <rishabh.rathod@appsmith.com>
|
||
|
Favour Ohanekwu
|
e6f2dcacde
|
feat: Improve Linting performance (#23865)
## Description This PR introduces a new architecture, making evaluation and linting independent. <img width="500" alt="Screenshot 2023-07-04 at 17 24 40" src="https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/assets/46670083/00b1eab9-cd79-4442-b51a-5345c2d6c4da"> In the previous architecture, one dependency graph was used to hold the relationship between entities in the application and subsequently, the "evaluation order" and "paths to lint" were generated. Although similar, the dependency graph required for evaluation and linting differ. For example, trigger fields should not depend on any other entity/entity path in the eval's dependency graph since they are not reactive. This is not the case for the linting dependency graph. ## Performance - This PR introduces "lint only" actions. These actions trigger linting, but not evaluation. For example, UPDATE_JS_ACTION_BODY_INIT (which is fired immediately after a user edits the body of a JS Object). Since linting fires without waiting for a successful update on the server, **response time decreases by 40%** (from 2s to 1.2s). - Reduction in time taken to generate paths requiring linting. <img width="715" alt="Screenshot 2023-07-04 at 18 10 52" src="https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/assets/46670083/d73a4bfc-de73-4fa7-bdca-af1e5d8ce8a1"> #### PR fixes following issue(s) Fixes #23447 Fixes #23166 Fixes #24194 Fixes #23720 Fixes #23868 Fixes #21895 Latest DP: https://appsmith-r3f9e325p-get-appsmith.vercel.app/ #### Type of change - Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception) ## Testing > #### How Has This Been Tested? - [x] Manual - [ ] Jest - [ ] Cypress > > #### Test Plan https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/23865#issuecomment-1606738633 > > #### Issues raised during DP testing https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/23865#issuecomment-1608779227 response: https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/23865#issuecomment-1619677033 > > > ## 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/Test-plan-implementation#speedbreaker-features-to-consider-for-every-change) have been covered - [ ] Test plan covers all impacted features and [areas of interest](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans/_edit#areas-of-interest) - [x] 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 --------- Co-authored-by: arunvjn <arun@appsmith.com> Co-authored-by: Ivan Akulov <mail@iamakulov.com> |
||
|
Vemparala Surya Vamsi
|
86dbb95cc9
|
chore: [perf optimisations for large data sets] optimised extract info binding code (#24720)
## Description Removed redundant copy operation around extractInfoFromBinding. This has brought an improvement to the setupUpdateTree function. Seen a reduction of eval computation by 60% when changing the table data from 3200 records to 10000 records. #### PR fixes following issue(s) Fixes #24753 #### Type of change - Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception) > > > ## Testing > #### How Has This Been Tested? > #### 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 - [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 - [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 |
||
|
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 |
||
|
Druthi Polisetty
|
99257efdb8
|
feat: Passing another param isUndefined to BINDING_SUCCESS event (#23112)
## Description Passing another param isUndefined that captures if the evaluatedValue of a new binding is undefined and is sent in the BINDING_SUCCESS event. Fixes #22909 #### Type of change - New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality) ## Testing #### How Has This Been Tested? - [x] Validated binding for table , select multi select text and button ## 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/Test-plan-implementation#speedbreaker-features-to-consider-for-every-change) have been covered - [ ] Test plan covers all impacted features and [areas of interest](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans/_edit#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 |
||
|
Satish Gandham
|
83538ad74d
|
feat: Bundle optimization and first load improvements (#21667)
Co-authored-by: Ivan Akulov <mail@iamakulov.com> Co-authored-by: Satish Gandham <hello@satishgandham.com> Co-authored-by: Ivan Akulov <iamakulov@outlook.com> Co-authored-by: Aishwarya UR <aishwarya@appsmith.com> Co-authored-by: Shrikant Sharat Kandula <shrikant@appsmith.com> Co-authored-by: somangshu <somangshu.goswami1508@gmail.com> |
||
|
Rishabh Rathod
|
7b9b63ba0b
|
fix: crash issue when replayMap is undefined (#22515)
## Description Fix the type of `replayMap` and accordingly modify the code to handle `undefined` cases. Fixes https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/22514 ## Type of change - Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue) ## How Has This Been Tested? > Please describe the tests that you ran to verify your changes. Provide instructions, so we can reproduce. > Please also list any relevant details for your test configuration. > Delete anything that is not important - 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 - [ ] 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 |
||
|
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> |
||
|
Favour Ohanekwu
|
f48972b81c
|
chore: lint bundling optimization (#22144) | ||
|
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 |
||
|
Druthi Polisetty
|
93ab966e92
|
fix: ENTITY_BINDING_SUCCESS event added which is fired whenever there is a successful binding created by the user. (#21227)
## Description Adding another event called ENTITY_BINDING_SUCCESS which is fired whenever there is a successful binding created by the user. The BINDING_SUCCESS event was firing more events than actual binding and therefore we created a new event to capture the right data. Fixes #20468 ## Type of change - Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue) ## How Has This Been Tested? - Manual ### Test Plan > Add Testsmith test cases links that relate to this PR ### Issues raised during DP testing When table widget 'data table' is cleared, ENTITY_BINDING_SUCCESS event is triggered https://www.loom.com/share/280ab5165b684d59948ae1bc9fe0c074 Templates automatically triggers entitybindingsuccess https://www.loom.com/share/16be5ae834b44d7bacc73a6d89a99fbd ## 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 |
||
|
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> |
||
|
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
|
||
|
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 |
||
|
Anand Srinivasan
|
93f0a6bff0
|
chore: add cloud hosting variable global scope (#20743)
## Description Passed in `cloudHosting` env variable to worker for certain actions. This will be used to filter `PlatformFunctions` and `ActionTriggerFunctionNames` in EE. So we can have EE exclusive platform functions and the necessary linting for those. eval worker actions: - SETUP (uses and assigns variable to global worker scope) - evalTree, evalTrigger uses the variable from global scope lint worker action(s): - LINT_TREE (uses variable directly) Fixes https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith-ee/issues/1024 ## Type of change - Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception) ## How Has This Been Tested? - 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 |
||
|
ashit-rath
|
a47dba5e26
|
feat: List V2 (#15839)
## 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 #18206 Fixes #6775 Fixes #13211 Fixes #16582 Fixes #11739 Fixes #15094 Fixes #6840 Fixes #10841 Fixes #17386 Fixes #18340 Fixes #16898 Fixes #17555 Fixes #6858 Fixes #9568 Fixes #17480 Fixes #18523 Fixes #18206 Fixes #16586 Fixes #18106 Fixes #16576 Fixes #14697 Fixes #9607 Fixes #19648 Fixes #19739 Fixes #19652 Fixes #18730 Fixes #19503 Fixes #19498 Fixes #19437 Fixes #5245 Fixes #19150 Fixes #18638 Fixes #11332 Fixes #17901 Fixes #19043 Fixes #17777 Fixes #8237 Fixes #15487 Fixes #15988 Fixes #18621 Fixes #16788 Fixes #18110 Fixes #18382 Fixes #17427 Fixes #18105 Fixes #18287 Fixes #19808 Fixes #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> |
||
|
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
|
||
|
arunvjn
|
7ca4f73cdf
|
fix: library installation failure in public apps (#20112)
- Feature flag API returns an empty response for public applications. The API to fetch installed libraries was behind the custom JS library feature flag and thus wasn't invoked. This PR removes all the references to CUSTOM_JS_LIB feature flag in the code base. - Add change to make Custom JS Lib view endpoint accessible without login. - Add JUnit TC to test for js lib presence in view mode. |
||
|
arunvjn
|
f79bec26ce
|
fix: missing reference to installed libraries when an application is deployed (#20200)
## Description Fixes a bug where application in edit mode loses references to installed libraries immediately after it is deployed. Fixes #20245 ## Type of change - Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue) ## How Has This Been Tested? - Manual - Cypress ### Test Plan Add a test case to the existing [test plan](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/issues/2125) on custom libraries ### 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: - [ ] Test plan has been approved by relevant developers - [ ] 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 |
||
|
arunvjn
|
e4a84b7c23
|
chore: support localstorage APIs using appsmith store functions (#19789)
## Description Most JS libraries are written with the intent to run of browsers main thread and not a web worker. JS libraries relies on the support for local storage APIs fail because web worker do not have access to local storage APIs. Examples of libraries that rely on localStorage include Mixpanel-browser, Supabasev2 etc. - Mocks localStorage API by using the respective store operation under the hood. - Autocomplete will not suggest localStorage APIs to promote the use of appsmith store functions. Fixes #19792 ### Type of change - Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception) ### How Has This Been Tested? - Manual 1. Instal supobase - https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/@supabase/supabase-js@2.4.0/dist/umd/supabase.min.js and verify that its working properly 2. Instal recommend libraries and verify that it is getting installed properly > 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 - [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 reveiwing all Cypress test |
||
|
Favour Ohanekwu
|
5231d307b8
|
feat: meta rehydration (#19683)
The introduction of MetaWidgets in https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/15839 introduces a scenario where widgets are newly added to the unevalTree but already have defined meta values. These previously defined meta values have higher priority and should not get overridden by default values. Fixes https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/16926 ## Type of change - Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue) - New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality) ## How Has This Been Tested? > Please describe the tests that you ran to verify your changes. Provide instructions, so we can reproduce. > Please also list any relevant details for your test configuration. > Delete anything that is not important - 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 |
||
|
Rishabh Rathod
|
563468af69
|
chore: code refactor for jsFunction audit log (#19297)
## Description code refactor for jsFunction audit log This is PR to support the changes in https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith-ee/pull/941/files ## Type of change chore ## How Has This Been Tested? - Manual - Jest - Cypress ### Test Plan No test plan required. ### 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: Ohans <fohanekwu@gmail.com> |
||
|
Rishabh Rathod
|
6b751d914e
|
fix: improve error message and performance in JS functions (#19137)
## Description
- Added logic to replace async function undefined error with
"{{actionName}} cannot be used in this field".
- This change improves performance for
- ParseJSActions
- Triggers execution
- Each Appsmith framework action execution.
- This change adds all platform functions to evalContext permanently.
Fixes #12179
Fixes #13273
Internal discussion for error message :-
https://theappsmith.slack.com/archives/C02K0SZQ7V3/p1667457021297869?thread_ts=1667385039.225229&cid=C02K0SZQ7V3
## Type of change
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
- Performance improvement
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Manual
- Jest
- Cypress
### Test Plan
- [ ] https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/issues/2086
### 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>
|
||
|
Anand Srinivasan
|
db38a64e71
|
chore: update imports for code split (#19085)
* move actionTriggers.ts * update imports Explorer/helpers.tsx * update imports EntityDefinitions.ts * update imports Evaluation/Actions.ts * update imports for ActionExecutionSagas * missed worker types * missed imports * update imports for dataTreeUtils * missed imports Co-authored-by: Aishwarya UR <aishwarya@appsmith.com> |
||
|
arunvjn
|
2dc7dc90e3
|
feat: Import javascript libraries (#17895) |
