Protei/PromucFlow_constructor
2
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions 2 Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
17,455 Commits 1 Branch 0 Tags 507 MiB
4bb0af479e
Commit Graph

3 Commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
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
 2023-09-30 02:12:56 +05:30
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
7cbb12af88,
we need to use `import type`. Otherwise, `babel-plugin-lodash` complains
that `LoDashStatic` is not a lodash function.

However, just using `import type` in the current codebase will give you
this:

<img width="962" alt="Screenshot 2023-03-08 at 17 45 59"
src="https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/2953267/223775744-407afa0c-e8b9-44a1-90f9-b879348da57f.png">

That’s because Prettier 1 can’t parse `import type` at all. To parse it,
we need to upgrade to Prettier 2.

### Why enforce `import type`?

Apart from just enabling `import type` support, this PR enforces
specifying `import type` everywhere it’s needed. (Developers will get
immediate TypeScript and ESLint errors when they forget to do so.)

I’m doing this because I believe `import type` improves DX and makes
refactorings easier.

Let’s say you had a few imports like below. Can you tell which of these
imports will increase the bundle size? (Tip: it’s not all of them!)

```ts
// app/client/src/workers/Linting/utils.ts
import { Position } from "codemirror";
import { LintError as JSHintError, LintOptions } from "jshint";
import { get, isEmpty, isNumber, keys, last, set } from "lodash";
```

It’s pretty hard, right?

What about now?

```ts
// app/client/src/workers/Linting/utils.ts
import type { Position } from "codemirror";
import type { LintError as JSHintError, LintOptions } from "jshint";
import { get, isEmpty, isNumber, keys, last, set } from "lodash";
```

Now, it’s clear that only `lodash` will be bundled.

This helps developers to see which imports are problematic, but it
_also_ helps with refactorings. Now, if you want to see where
`codemirror` is bundled, you can just grep for `import \{.*\} from
"codemirror"` – and you won’t get any type-only imports.

This also helps (some) bundlers. Upon transpiling, TypeScript erases
type-only imports completely. In some environment (not ours), this makes
the bundle smaller, as the bundler doesn’t need to bundle type-only
imports anymore.

## Type of change

- Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception)


## How Has This Been Tested?

This was tested to not break the build.

### 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
- [ ] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] My changes generate no new warnings
- [ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [ ] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag


### QA activity:
- [ ] Test plan has been approved by relevant developers
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by QA
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by either SDET or
manual QA
- [ ] Organized project review call with relevant stakeholders after
Round 1/2 of QA
- [ ] Added Test Plan Approved label after reveiwing all Cypress test

---------

Co-authored-by: Satish Gandham <hello@satishgandham.com>
Co-authored-by: Satish Gandham <satish.iitg@gmail.com>
 2023-03-16 17:11:47 +05:30
Ankita Kinger
424e3b24e4
fix: updating the redirection of admin settings to fix failing tests (#18971) 2022-12-16 17:14:44 +05:30