## Description
- Deleting the failed-spec-ci once it is downloaded in ci-test-result to
avoid getting specs from older runs
## Type of change
- yml file changes
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Manual
## Checklist:
### 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
## Description
- Removed the artifact deleting as we need the artifact in case of rerun
on cancel
## Type of change
- Workflow yml files
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Manual
## Checklist:
### 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
The RTS slim image isn't used, at all. The `appsmith-ce` and
`appsmith-ee` images run RTS inside of them, and the slim container
setup doesn't support RTS at all.
## Description
- Removing the old combined failed spec file
## Type of change
- workflow files
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Manual
## Checklist:
### 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
## Description
- Added step to delete the failed-spec-ci after combining all results to
address the issue
## Type of change
- ci
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Manual
## Checklist:
### 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
## Description
- Added steps to use the pre built docker image instead of building a
new one in perf-test.yml
## Type of change
- perf-test.yml
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Manual
## Checklist:
### 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
## Description
- Modularised the docker image building
- Optimised the `install dependancies` step to reduce the time from 8
mins to 30-40 secs now
- Removed unnecessary steps from the ci-dubugging.yml
- Added ci-debug.sh file to ease the steps to run ngrok while running
ci-debugging
- Changes made to below files
1. integration-tests-command.yml
2. test-build-docker-image.yml
3. ci-test.yml
4. build-docker-image.yml
## Type of change
- integration-tests-command.yml
- test-build-docker-image.yml
- ci-test.yml
- build-docker-image.yml
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Manual
## Checklist:
### 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
## Description
- Modularising the ci-test
## Type of change
- Workflow files
## Checklist:
### 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
## Description
- This PR includes the script updates for connecting to TED Git instead
of actual Github for running tests
## Type of change
- New script changes to connect to TED Git
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Cypress CI runs
## Checklist:
### QA activity:
- [X] 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
- [X] Organized project review call with relevant stakeholders after
Round 1/2 of QA
- [X] Added Test Plan Approved label after reveiwing all Cypress test
## Description
- This PR skips the upgrade spec until its fully functional
## Type of change
- Script fix
## Checklist:
### QA activity:
- [X] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by either SDET or
manual QA
Set the pr number as 0 for push event.
> Pull Request Template
>
> Use this template to quickly create a well written pull request.
Delete all quotes before creating the pull request.
## Description
> 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
> Add a TL;DR when description is extra long (helps content team)
Fixes # (issue)
> 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
## 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
## Description
- This PR moves all specs from slim to fat container to run tests underneath it
- Fat has the actual libraries that are being shipping to customers, hence this PR
- Also includes moving Git tests from using GitHub to Gitea
## Type of change
- New run (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Cypress CI Fat runs
## Checklist:
### QA activity:
- [X] 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
- [X] 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: yatinappsmith <84702014+yatinappsmith@users.noreply.github.com>
Add JAVA setup step to perf tests in test build workflow.
This is a possible fix for perf tests on running because backend server
was not up.
Co-authored-by: Satish Gandham <hello@satishgandham.com>
## Description
Reverts the changes made to perf job in ui-build-workflow as the perf tests are getting skipped.
Co-authored-by: Satish Gandham <hello@satishgandham.com>
This upgrade takes care of our move to JDK 17, Spring Boot 3.0.1 and a
few other security upgrades along the way.
Fixes#18993
TODO:
- [x] Check CI changes for Java 17
- [x] Check vulnerability report
- [x] Mongock needs an upgrade
- [x] Add JVM args at all possible places for exposing java.time module
- [x] Add type adapters everywhere / use the same config for type
adapters everywhere
Remove perf-tests from /ok-to-test temporarily.
**Why**
Switch to github runners is causing an issue with perf tests, disabling until that is resolved.
Co-authored-by: Satish Gandham <hello@satishgandham.com>
## Description
Ci fix run result due to deprecated
Fixes # (issue)
Media
## Type of change
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
## How Has This Been Tested?
code reivew
### 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:
- [ ] 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
## Description
- This PR includes changes for starting rts server for AST changes to take effect
## Type of change
- yml file updates
## 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
## Description
- This PR includes changes for starting rts server for AST changes to take effect
## Type of change
- yml file updates
## 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
Fix ci cache & rts build for push workflow
## Description
Fix ci cache & rts build for push workflow
## Type of change
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
## How Has This Been Tested?
code review
## 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
- [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
## Description
The problem with the RTS workflow after the induction of AST parsing was that while copying the `node_modules`, Ubuntu doesn't follow the symlink and copy the content. It simply copies the symlink as is. This causes issues for RTS service to start.
## Type of change
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Personal repository
## Checklist:
- [ ] 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
