3ed620e156
5 Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Ankita Kinger
|
3ed620e156
|
fix: Updating the ramp link for Enterprise features to open the pricing page (#32698)
## Description Updating the ramp link for Enterprise features to open the pricing page. Fixes [#30211](https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/30211) ## Automation /ok-to-test tags="@tag.Settings" ### 🔍 Cypress test results <!-- This is an auto-generated comment: Cypress test results --> > [!TIP] > 🟢 🟢 🟢 All cypress tests have passed! 🎉 🎉 🎉 > Workflow run: <https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/actions/runs/8706159532> > Commit: b9925ae2ec5a14724586f72affa02a1d83078813 > Cypress dashboard url: <a href="https://internal.appsmith.com/app/cypress-dashboard/rundetails-65890b3c81d7400d08fa9ee5?branch=master&workflowId=8706159532&attempt=1" target="_blank">Click here!</a> <!-- end of auto-generated comment: Cypress test results --> <!-- This is an auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai --> ## Summary by CodeRabbit - **New Features** - Enhanced enterprise-level provisioning and authentication settings across various components. - Added a new Cypress command to improve testing by simulating customer portal interactions. - **Refactor** - Streamlined UI components by adjusting styles and simplifying rendering logic. - Removed redundant spinner components and simplified conditions in various editor components. - **Style** - Updated CSS properties and variables for better consistency and maintainability. - **Tests** - Updated regression tests to reflect new functionalities and page interactions. <!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai --> |
||
|
ashit-rath
|
59d0f999ad
|
chore: route builder refactor (#27905)
## Description This PR aims to achieve 2 things 1. Make route building independent of explicitly passing `pageId` as param when the route is generated against the current page navigation. 2. Add extensible points to extend basePath generation in EE. THIS PR DOES NOT CHANGE ROUTE GENERATION. Changes: In `app/client/src/ce/entities/URLRedirect/URLAssembly.ts` 1. Moves the logic of `generateBasePath` way to specific method called `generateBasePathForApps` and the generateBasePath is available to extend and switch between a different base path generation logic in EE. 2. Adds a new member variable called `currentPageId`. This `currentPageId` would help generating basePath without explicitly passing `pageId` to the build method. If a `pageId` is passed it would be overridden in the `resolveEntityId` logic. 3. Added `resolveEntityId` method to resolve the entity (pageId) based on the params passed and the `currentPageId`. This method also acts as an extension point for extending the logic to any other resolution logic similar to `generateBasePath` In `app/client/src/pages/AppViewer/index.tsx` and `app/client/src/pages/Editor/index.tsx` The `currentPageId` is set using the `urlBuilder.setCurrentPageId` when the component mounts or page changes and unset when the component unmounts. #### PR fixes following issue(s) Fixes #27840 #### 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 - [x] Manual - [ ] JUnit - [x] Jest - [ ] Cypress > > #### Test Plan > Add Testsmith test cases links that relate to this PR > > #### Issues raised during DP testing > Link issues raised during DP testing for better visiblity and tracking (copy link from comments dropped on this PR) > > > ## Checklist: #### Dev activity - [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 |
||
|
Dipyaman Biswas
|
6c0dc2e89f
|
feat: code split files based on feature flags (#27678)
## Description Add feature flag based logic for code splitted files #### PR fixes following issue(s) Fixes #2237 #### Type of change - New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality) - Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected) ## 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 - [ ] JUnit - [ ] 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 - [ ] 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 |
||
|
Ankita Kinger
|
5e6dd189fd
|
chore: Updating link component props (#27223)
## Description Updating existing link component usage to use the correct props and remove `e.preventDefault()` when not required, as we have updated the DS Link component implementation #### PR fixes following issue(s) Fixes [#583](https://github.com/appsmithorg/design-system/issues/583) #### Type of change - Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception) ## Testing #### How Has This Been Tested? - [x] Manual - [ ] JUnit - [ ] 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 |
||
|
Ankita Kinger
|
ce9c32cb92
|
chore: Improve code splitting of FE components (#26659)
## Description Improve code splitting of FE components to avoid minimal changes needed on EE when CE is modified. #### PR fixes following issue(s) Fixes [#24184](https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/24184) #### 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 |