3e937a94c2
44 Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Apeksha Bhosale
|
54a9d06fb9
|
chore: making body and variables as optional props- 31568 (#31665)
## Description > [!TIP] > _Add a TL;DR when the description is longer than 500 words or extremely technical (helps the content team)._ > > _Please also include relevant motivation and context. List any dependencies that are required for this change. Add links to Notion, Figma or any other documents that might be relevant to the PR._ Fixes #`Issue Number` _or_ Fixes https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/31568 > [!WARNING] > _If no issue exists, please create an issue first, and check with the maintainers if the issue is valid._ ## Automation /ok-to-test tags="@tag.All" ### 🔍 Cypress test results <!-- This is an auto-generated comment: Cypress test results --> > [!IMPORTANT] > Workflow run: <https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/actions/runs/8325305172> > Commit: `ce37f05a17f494b1a5409cf79895248cc32f453f` > Cypress dashboard url: <a href="https://internal.appsmith.com/app/cypress-dashboard/rundetails-65890b3c81d7400d08fa9ee5?branch=master&workflowId=8325305172&attempt=2" target="_blank">Click here!</a> > All cypress tests have passed 🎉🎉🎉 <!-- end of auto-generated comment: Cypress test results --> |
||
|
Rishabh Rathod
|
aaf2a362e7
|
fix: remove globalThis usage (#31689)
## Description Fixes https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/31711 ## Automation /ok-to-test tags="@tag.JS" ### 🔍 Cypress test results <!-- This is an auto-generated comment: Cypress test results --> > [!IMPORTANT] > Workflow run: <https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/actions/runs/8253464545> > Commit: `d0c773f54c056f9b02fd4160c824cf76d9934919` > Cypress dashboard url: <a href="https://internal.appsmith.com/app/cypress-dashboard/rundetails-65890b3c81d7400d08fa9ee5?branch=master&workflowId=8253464545&attempt=1" target="_blank">Click here!</a> > All cypress tests have passed 🎉🎉🎉 <!-- end of auto-generated comment: Cypress test results --> <!-- This is an auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai --> ## Summary by CodeRabbit - **Refactor** - Improved consistency and compatibility in variable and function references across the app. - Enhanced type safety for action entities. <!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai --> |
||
|
Ankita Kinger
|
cf6c77194b
|
chore: Refactoring entity types and updating DS action create permission to fix some bugs on EE (#29573)
## Description Refactoring entity types and updating DS action create permission to fix some bugs on EE #### PR fixes following issue(s) Fixes # (issue number) #### Type of change - Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception) ## Testing #### How Has This Been Tested? - [x] Manual - [ ] JUnit - [x] Jest - [x] 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 #### 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** - Streamlined entity type naming conventions across the application for better consistency. - Enhanced type definitions for improved code clarity and maintainability. - Updated function calls to use object parameters with named properties for better readability. - **New Features** - Introduced a new entity type for module instances, expanding the application's data handling capabilities. - **Bug Fixes** - Corrected improper type assertions to ensure accurate entity recognition and processing. - **Documentation** - Added comments to clarify the non-introduction of certain dependencies in specific components. - **Style** - Adjusted import statements to align with the updated naming conventions. - **Tests** - Updated test cases to reflect changes in entity type references and assertions. <!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai --> |
||
|
ashit-rath
|
c281600ea7
|
chore: refactor create jsobject under modules (#29555)
## Description Refactor to create js objects for modules #### PR fixes following issue(s) PR for https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith-ee/pull/3095 #### 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 - 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 <!-- This is an auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai --> ## Summary by CodeRabbit - **Refactor** - Updated import paths for `JSCollectionData` and related types across various files to reflect a change in the file structure or module resolution strategy. - Exported `initialState` and `handlers` from `jsActionsReducer` to align with updated code organization. - **New Features** - Added a new entry `JSModules` to the `entitySections` object in `editorContextReducer.ts` to enhance editor context management. - **Bug Fixes** - Adjusted the `createDummyJSCollectionActions` function to include `additionalParams` and `variables` for improved action creation and initialization. - **Documentation** - No visible changes to end-user documentation in this pull request. - **Style** - No style-related changes affecting end-users in this pull request. - **Tests** - No test-related changes affecting end-users in this pull request. - **Chores** - No chore-related changes affecting end-users in this pull request. - **Revert** - No reverts affecting end-users in this pull request. <!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai --> |
||
|
Apeksha Bhosale
|
86c65b5f4a
|
chore: added new selector for all js collections to be extended on ee (#29553)
## Description this is added to run all js functions from js editor #### 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 - **New Features** - Introduced a new function to aggregate JavaScript collections for enhanced data handling. - **Refactor** - Updated internal logic to utilize the new aggregation function for JavaScript collections, improving efficiency and maintainability. <!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai --> |
||
|
arunvjn
|
6c81f07e79
|
fix: deleted JSObject names are not released for later use (#29148)
## Description > Repeated refactor operations seems to leave stale JS Objects in the dataTree causing the dataTree to occupy namespace that no longer exists. This seems to have stemmed from the `updateEvalTreeWithJSCollectionState` method in app/client/src/workers/common/DataTreeEvaluator/index.ts, where we update the existing evalTree with JSObjects and their variables from the previous unEvalTree. > This PR modifies `updateEvalTreeWithJSCollectionState` to not apply variable state to evalTree if the entity is not present. #### PR fixes following issue(s) Fixes #29162 > 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 - Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue) > > ## Testing > #### How Has This Been Tested? - [x] Manual - [x] Cypress > > #### Test Plan - [x] Repeated renaming operations should work. - [x] Deleting a JS Object should make the name available for use. - [x] Execution data should be preserved on rename operations > > #### 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 |
||
|
arunvjn
|
1afd223e10
|
fix: Race condition in JS object mutation (#28083)
## Description Fixes race condition in JS Object mutation where evaluation overrides the variables state. Root Cause: Execution context is shared between every evaluation request and trigger execution request. A trigger execution request could be paused when an asynchronous task is awaited. In the mean time, worker might pick up the task to perform and evaluation. Evaluation would end up replacing the entities in the execution context, there by resetting the actions performed by the trigger execution before it was paused. What the fix does? We are now caching the JS object for reuse which means that every execution/evaluation request reuses the same JS Object as long the JS Object isn't modified by a user action. #### PR fixes following issue(s) Fixes #27978 > > #### 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 - Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue) > > ## Testing > #### How Has This Been Tested? - [x] Manual - [x] Jest - [x] 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: - [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 - [x] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after Cypress tests were reviewed - [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after JUnit tests were reviewed |
||
|
Valera Melnikov
|
9eac55a380
|
chore: add consistent-type-definitions rule (#27907)
## Description Add consistent-type-definitions rule |
||
|
Apeksha Bhosale
|
0f393a2423
|
chore: separated tree type into common file to be extended on EE (#27812)
## Description UnEvalTree, dataTree and configTree's entities needs to be extended on EE to accommodate module inputs and different types of modules hence the separation. I have added few more sanity checks in the existing code which were throwing errors/warning on EE. #### PR fixes following issue(s) Fixes # (issue number) #### 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 - 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 |
||
|
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 |
||
|
Apeksha Bhosale
|
01c90f1df1
|
changes in evaluation for EE - split (#27144)
## Description Evaluation split changes for EE. 1. RequiresLinting function has moved to common place - on EE extra checks will be added 2. DataTreeFactory - getActionsForCurrentPage changed to getCurrentActions -- which will be modified on EE to acomodate package actions 3. same as above for getJSCollectionsForCurrentPage --> changed to getCurrentJSCollections #### PR fixes following issue(s) Fixes # (issue number) > if no issue exists, please create an issue and ask the maintainers about this first > > > #### 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
|
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> |
||
|
Favour Ohanekwu
|
60fa6e352d
|
chore: Instrument JS execution (#25613)
This PR adds more details to the "EXECUTE_ACTION" event on trigger fields <img width="500" alt="Screenshot 2023-07-05 at 10 03 32" src="https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/assets/46670083/13b3ab48-6c19-453a-8eb8-c87129e8c8d5"> #### PR fixes following issue(s) Fixes #24706 #### 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: Aishwarya UR <aishwarya@appsmith.com> |
||
|
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
|
3df0252692
|
fix: revert execution instrumentation (#25163) | ||
|
Favour Ohanekwu
|
a7f818d546
|
chore: Improve js execution instrumentation (#24994)
###Description This PR enriches the data logged for the EXECUTE_ACTION event on trigger fields. Example schema <img width="500" alt="Screenshot 2023-07-05 at 10 03 32" src="https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/assets/46670083/13b3ab48-6c19-453a-8eb8-c87129e8c8d5"> Fixes #24706 #### 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 |
||
|
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> |
||
|
arunvjn
|
1163d6a891
|
fix: Added support for bracket notation autocomplete (#24493)
## Description Adds support for bracket notation in autocomplete results - Change AST parsing in JSObjects to support property access using bracket notation - Change `flattenDef` logic to add bracket notation when dot notation is invalid. Eg. when the property is separated by space or has an invalid character. - Added `hint` callback to all the generated hints to convert invalid dot notation autocompletion to a valid bracket notation #### PR fixes following issue(s) Fixes #21473 > > #### 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 - Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue) > > ## Testing > #### How Has This Been Tested? - [x] Manual - [ ] Jest - [x] 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 |
||
|
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 |
||
|
Ravi Kumar Prasad
|
3f870166b5
|
fix: js object functions were retained after clearing (#23504)
## Description After deleting all the JS code, the older functions were getting retained. This PR fixes that issue by clearing the functions when the js object body is empty. #### PR fixes following issue(s) fixes #9585 #### Type of change - Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue) ## Testing - [x] 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/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 --------- Co-authored-by: Aishwarya UR <aishwarya@appsmith.com> |
||
|
Rishabh Rathod
|
6e248577c4
|
chore: Disable post process during fn determination (#23289)
Fixes https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/22714 Fixes https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/22636 Fixes https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/22779 |
||
|
Ankita Kinger
|
ae05e93ec9
|
chore: Removing feature flag for app level invites (#22650)
## Description Removing feature flag for app-level invites. Also, updating import statements to use `@appsmith/..` instead of `ce/..` Fixes [#22657](https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/22657) ## Type of change - Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception) ## 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 - [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: - [ ] 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> |
||
|
Ravi Kumar Prasad
|
6ac99037b0
|
feat: Action selector (#21582)
## Description
Replaces the old boring action selector dropdown with a much more
sophisticated UI that is capable of going above and beyond. Users with
an aversion to code can now build their more complex workflows with a
click of a few buttons.
Consider this code snippet
```javascript
Api1.run(() => {
showAlert("Hello");
navigateTo('Page1', {}, 'SAME_WINDOW');
}, () => {
removeValue("test");
});
```
|**Old action selector** |**New action selector**|
|:-:|:-:|
|<img width="250" alt="Screenshot 2023-03-29 at 16 54 14"
src="https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/32433245/228520661-a639b580-8986-4aec-a0f5-e2786d1a0f56.png">|
<img width="250" alt="Screenshot 2023-03-29 at 16 55 15"
src="https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/32433245/228521043-5025aa42-af95-4574-b586-bc4c721240bc.png">|
**Click on an action block to edit its parameters.**
<img width="500" alt="Screenshot 2023-03-29 at 17 01 18"
src="https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/32433245/228522479-493769d0-9d2c-4b67-b493-a79e3bb9c947.png">
**Switch to JS mode to get the raw code**
<img width="273" alt="Screenshot 2023-03-29 at 17 05 51"
src="https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/32433245/228523458-13bc0302-4c94-4176-b5aa-3ec208122f57.png">
### Code changes
**New UI components**
- ActionCreator component splits the code into block statements.
- Each block statement is represented by ActionTree.tsx UI component.
- ActionTree.tsx represents an action and its chains.
- ActionCard.tsx is the block that represents the individual action on
the UI.
- ActionSelector.tsx component is popover that contains the form for
editing individual action.
- TabView, TextView, SelectorView, ActionSelectorView and KeyValueView
are components that represent configurable fields in ActionSelector
form.
**AST methods**
- Added methods to get/set function names, expressions, arguments.
- Added methods to get/set then/catch blocks to allow chaining of
actions.
- Added methods to check if code is convertible to UI.
Fixes #10160
Fixes #21588
Fixes #21392
Fixes #21393
Fixes #7903
Fixes #15895
Fixes #17765
Fixes #14562
Depends on https://github.com/appsmithorg/design-system/pull/306
## Type of change
- New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Manual
- Jest
- Cypress
### Test Plan
https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/issues/2296
### 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
- [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] 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: Rimil Dey <rimil@appsmith.com>
Co-authored-by: arunvjn <arun@appsmith.com>
Co-authored-by: Aishwarya UR <aishwarya@appsmith.com>
Co-authored-by: Parthvi Goswami <parthvigoswami@Parthvis-MacBook-Pro.local>
|
||
|
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 |
||
|
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
|
||
|
Favour Ohanekwu
|
b458dcf8e2
|
fix: update JS Function async property after parsing (#21139)
## Description This PR updates the local unevalTree after parsing, to include changes in the `async` property of JS Functions Fixes #21144 ## Type of change > Please delete options that are not relevant. - Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue) ## How Has This Been Tested? - 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 - [ ] 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 |
||
|
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
|
||
|
Favour Ohanekwu
|
408cbe2ac4
|
chore: fix js object flaky tests (#20106)
## Description - Introduces a new way of filling JS content in cypress tests - Adds tests to handle invalid export of JS Objects - Removes redundant "toast wait" function - Refactors selection of JSAction from state Fixes #20023 ## 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 Co-authored-by: Aishwarya UR <aishwarya@appsmith.com> |
||
|
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> |
||
|
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 |
||
|
Rishabh Rathod
|
bc54870f95
|
fix: Disable console logs for internal operation (#19551)
## Description To determine if a JSObject function is sync or async, we run a `functionDeterminer.isFunctionAsync` check that actually runs the raw user function, this way we find out if a trigger was present or not. When running the raw user function internally, we should disable console logs to make sure users don't see those logs. TL;DR:- Changes in this PR disable the console log for the internal run of JSObject functions. Fixes https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/19533 ## Type of change - Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue) ## 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 - [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 |
||
|
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
|
8c3a34c8bc
|
fix: jsObject updates (#19303)
## Description This is a hotfix change for the issue created due to a data tree split where JSObject has `name` as a variable and a function is modified to change behavior from sync to async or vice versa. Fixes https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/19310 ## Type of change - Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue) ## How Has This Been Tested? - Manual - Cypress ### Test Plan - [ ] https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/issues/2129 ### 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: - [x] 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
|
5a98e8f4ba
|
fix: EE client-build failure (#19411)
## Description Import Appstate from "@appsmith/ " instead of "ce/" 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) - 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 Co-authored-by: Ankita Kinger <ankita@appsmith.com> |
||
|
Favour Ohanekwu
|
23a89b9a13
|
fix: Save JS Execution data on trigger (#18940) | ||
|
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> |
||
|
Rimil Dey
|
d0ceef7593
|
revert: Parse js actions for view mode changes (#19033)
Revert "fix: Parse js actions for view mode changes (#18357)"
This reverts commit
|
||
|
Apeksha Bhosale
|
efa8b68a47
|
fix: Parse js actions for view mode changes (#18357)
* added new function inside parse js actions for view moe * fixing test cases * added evaluateSync with isTriggered false * Add types Add switch case for diff.event Add function get back app mode * Change foreach loops to for of * Dont return jsUpdates from view mode save resolved since no operation is happening Change viewModeSaveResolvedFunctionsAndJSUpdates -> viewModeSaveResolvedFunctions to reflect what it's functionality is * Refactor JSObject code * Refactor code for JSobject * remove any * export parsed object's type from ast * create function for deleteResolvedFunctionsAndCurrentJSCollectionState * Code review changes * Fix tests * Change returns in for of loops to continue Remove try for evaluate sync Js updates return * Fix bug * Fix bug Co-authored-by: Rimil Dey <rimil@appsmith.com> Co-authored-by: Aishwarya UR <aishwarya@appsmith.com> |
||
|
Rishabh Rathod
|
c440343586
|
chore: perf data tree shrink (#18361)
trimming dataTree object size by removing configs to make evaluation faster. |
||
|
Apeksha Bhosale
|
42900c022f
|
fix: Reduces cloning by not adding platform functions (#18433)
reduces cloning |
||
|
Favour Ohanekwu
|
1379180ecd
|
feat: Split evaluation and linting (#17287)
* Evaluations and Linting now runs on separate web-workers for a much faster and responsive coding experience on Appsmith. * Removed worker-loader webpack plugin. |
