## Description
As per earlier implementation we were using the reflection to find out
the declared method in super class based on the feature flag status.
This PR fallback to Java inheritance structure to get the method instead
of specifically looking for the one within the class.
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/27065
#### Type of change
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
## 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
- [ ] 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
## Description
> Add community changes for the 1 click upgrade degrade for
Provisioning.
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith-ee/issues/2126
#### Type of change
- Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception)
## Testing
>
#### How Has This Been Tested?
Existing Server and Cypress test cases should pass.
#### Test Plan
> Add Testsmith test cases links that relate to this PR
>
>
#### Issues raised during DP testing
> Link issues raised during DP testing for better visiblity and tracking
(copy link from comments dropped on this PR)
>
>
>
## Checklist:
#### Dev activity
- [x] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] My changes generate no new warnings
- [ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [x] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag
#### QA activity:
- [ ] [Speedbreak
features](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#speedbreakers-)
have been covered
- [ ] Test plan covers all impacted features and [areas of
interest](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#areas-of-interest-)
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by project stakeholders and other
QA members
- [ ] Manually tested functionality on DP
- [ ] We had an implementation alignment call with stakeholders post QA
Round 2
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by SDET/manual QA
- [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after Cypress tests were reviewed
- [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after JUnit tests were reviewed
---------
Co-authored-by: Nilesh Sarupriya <20905988+nsarupr@users.noreply.github.com>
## Description
> This PR fixes the error introduced in
https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/25854 which lead to sending
of welcome mails even for non signup - oauth type requests.
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes#27054
> 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
>
>
>
## 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
Changes
add rate limit on login and signup APIs
add annotations to support rate limit on controllers which can be
configured per API.
refactor SecurityConfig
implementation details
uses bucket4j for rate limiting
uses redis as a backend for distributed rate limiting
fixes: https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith-ee/issues/234
## Description
This PR extends `/schema-preview` API for movies mock mongo DB. For this
experiment we will need to show schema along with preview of movies
mongo DB on the review page. This feature is currently implemented only
for mock mongo DB, if the experiment turns out to be a success, this
will be further extended for non mock mongo datasources as well.
More info on Activation experiments can be found
[here](https://www.notion.so/appsmith/User-Activation-Experiments-cecdd8af23ac4286968096da4a4fdc99)
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes#26936
> 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
- New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
>
>
>
## 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
- [ ] 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
- [ ] 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
---------
Co-authored-by: “sneha122” <“sneha@appsmith.com”>
### Description
PR to code split git service testcases. On EE need to test following
functionality:
1. If the server is Appsmith cloud
2. For self hosted instances if the feature flag is enabled, does the
check for private repo limit getting bypassed correctly
## Description
As the CS URL is set to release in test env every run for JUnit
testcases corresponding entry was getting created on Flagsmith and
bloating the DB. This PR creates a mock layer for feature flag service
so as to completely block the external call.
Q: Why the Mockbean is not a suitable alternative here?
A: With the @FeatureFlagged we check if the feature flag is supported
for the user and decide where to run EE or CECompatible code. Also there
is a cron which gets triggered after 10sec to fetch the tenant level
features which again hit release CS to fetch the FF. This needs to be
implemented for all the test classes to avoid the external calls
completely.
This PR adds a mock service layer which activates only for the JUnit
testcases, so that in production or even while running cypress testsuite
we are going to run the `CacheableFeatureFlagHelper`.
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/26554
> 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.
- Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception)
## Testing
>
#### How Has This Been Tested?
> Please describe the tests that you ran to verify your changes. Also
list any relevant details for your test configuration.
> Delete anything that is not relevant
- [x] Manual
- [x] 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
- [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
## Description
> TL;DR Complimentary changes utlising
`APPSMITH_CLOUD_SERVICES_SIGNATURE_BASE_URL` when mocking flagsmith on
cloud services
fetching the remote flags from cloud server, the the cacheableHelper
function retrieves base url for cloud services.
when running CI tests this base url is set to ted rather than the cloud
services. In order to get the docker hosted CS url which is provided by
this varialbe: `APPSMITH_CLOUD_SERVICES_SIGNATURE_BASE_URL` , we have to
use another method `getBaseUrlWithSignatureVerification` to get the
docker hosted CS url instead of `getBaseUrl` which gives TED url
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes#25787
#### Type of change
- Chore: this may break EE sync
>
>
>
## 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
## Description
This PR fixes the issue with filter format in gsheet query creation:
The issue occurs when say the spreadsheet has data in the following
format:
<img width="258" alt="Screenshot 2023-08-31 at 3 09 03 PM"
src="https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/assets/30018882/88f8fdae-4223-468a-b05d-04fd8e9841dc">
Now if we write a query with where clause to to fetch all records with
Id < 3, it returns first two records as expected. Now if we change the
filter format to cell range and define cell range as b2:b4, It should
return `Name: test1 test2 test3`, but instead it throws error, because
it first filters out data based on cell range provided, and post that it
checks if the where conditions are defined in actionConfig and applies
that on the result set to filter data. In above example result set would
be `Name: test1 test2 test3` and it tries to apply the where clause
condition of `Id < 2`
In order to solve the issue, we need to apply where conditions only when
filter format is `Where Clause`.
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes#25447
> 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?
> 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
- [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
- [ ] 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-)
- [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: “sneha122” <“sneha@appsmith.com”>
## Description
PR to add the fallback mechanism when a call to CS to fetch the feature
flags at tenant as well as user level fails for some reason. With this
PR once the feature flag response is received for the first time user
will never lose the access of the feature.
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith-ee/issues/2130
#### Type of change
- New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
## Testing
#### How Has This Been Tested?
> Please describe the tests that you ran to verify your changes. Also
list any relevant details for your test configuration.
> Delete anything that is not relevant
- [x] Manual
- [x] 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
- [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
## Description
As we have started using the @FeatureFlagged for selectively calling the
methods from different classes based on the feature flag support, this
needs a valid user object to detect if the feature is supported for the
current user. This PR adds the api_user context for running the
testcases and also adds the mocking for FeatureFlagService which will be
used only in EE codebase, but added here to avoid any future merge
conflicts.
## Description
### Context
As a part of 1 click upgrade-downgrade project we're streamlining our
processes by delivering a unified image for both our business and
community users (We will still be building the CE image but in all our
communication EE image will be referred going forward). This change aims
to simplify the business trial experience, removing the complexities of
handling multiple image repositories. The user experience will be
tailored to the license key provided which decides the feature flag
values and provide a corresponding experience. This also means going
forward one can start the EE instance without needing to enter the
license key and will be presented with the CE equivalent experience.
### Change
With this PR we are bringing in a updated structure described in the
below image. This includes:
1. Introducing a new helper class i.e.`GitPrivateRepoHelper` which will
be used in EE codebase to provide a fallback when feature flag is not
supported.
Private repo helper class is only needed to get away with the limitation
of Spring AOP where methods which are self-invoked does not get
intercepted. We explored the self-injection but does not look like a
cleaner solution, more details can be found in
[this](https://www.baeldung.com/spring-self-injection) article.
<img width="1057" alt="Screenshot 2023-08-25 at 11 02 52 PM"
src="https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/assets/41686026/3e443be4-6184-41c2-9df7-e3ee915584ef">
#### _Note: As described in above image, we expect to create the CE
compatible version of EEImpl classes if there is a difference in the
experience between CE and feature disabled version of EE hence there is
no requirement of adding another class in this case._
Corresponding CE PR: https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/26665
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
#### Type of change
- New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
## Testing
#### How Has This Been Tested?
> Please describe the tests that you ran to verify your changes. Also
list any relevant details for your test configuration.
> Delete anything that is not relevant
- [x] Manual
- [x] 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
- [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
CRUD Page generation used edit datasource and edit application
permissions till now. Updated the same to create page actions and create
pages permissions respectively to support custom role creation on BE.
Fixes#26738
**Changes**
* add rate limit on login and signup APIs
* add annotations to support rate limit on controllers which can be
configured per API.
* refactor SecurityConfig
**implementation details**
* uses bucket4j for rate limiting
* uses redis as a backend for distributed rate limiting
Redis with SSL was supported, but was broken when we added support for
connecting to Redis clusters.
This PR brings that support to `rediss://` URIs back.
To test, get a Redis Database provisioned on DigitalOcean, and use the
URI from there and verify Appsmith comes up, when `APPSMITH_REDIS_URL`
is set to it.
## Description
Adds a setting for Admin Users to enable Email verification of users who
are signing up using "Form login" When enabled, it will send a
verification email to a user who is signing up on a tenant and only when
they verify (by clicking on the link in email) they will be allowed to
proceed to the rest of the sign up process.
Corresponding EE PR for the email template:
https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith-ee/pull/2153
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes#21387Fixes#25552
#### Media
> A video or a GIF is preferred. when using Loom, don’t embed because it
looks like it’s a GIF. instead, just link to the video
>
>
#### Type of change
- New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
- This change requires a documentation update
## Testing
>
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [x] Manual
- [x] Jest
- [x] Cypress
We have mocked server apis to respond with different states and tested
the ui on that change
#### Test Plan
https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/issues/2459
>
>
#### 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
- [x] 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-)
- [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: nilansh <nilansh@appsmith.com>
## Description
> Update the tenant and send the complete configuration information
using `getTenantConfiguration()` once then update is done.
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/26589
#### 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] JUnit
#### 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: Nilesh Sarupriya <20905988+nsarupr@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Pawan Kumar <pawan.stardust@gmail.com>
## Description
> Login source of users is not tagged properly, if they are invited and
then directly login using an OAuth2 mechanism.
> With the change in checks post successful authentication, the users
will have the correct login source.
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/26519
#### 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
#### 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: Nilesh Sarupriya <20905988+nsarupr@users.noreply.github.com>
## Description
When we introduced the tenant level flags, it's not been added in get
all flags for user instead we added these in the user data service to
get all the feature flags for user. As we are progressing with 1 click
upgrade-downgrade project to avoid future confusion around feature
flagging I was hoping to expose single method to get all the relevant
feature flags for user. This includes:
1. Local flags from ff4j
2. User level flags from Flagsmith
3. Tenant level flags from Flagsmith (These will be shared across the
userbase with same tenantId)
This PR unifies the flags with single method
`getAllFeatureFlagsForUser`.
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/26547
#### Type of change
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
## Testing
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [x] Manual
- [x] Junit
## 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
## Description
The tenant level feature flags are pulled from Flagsmith from a cron job
scheduled to run after every couple of hours. Also the refresh rate is
set to exact same time as that of cron execution interval i.e. 120mins.
This is creating a race condition because of which the latest feature
flag may not get refreshed after each 2hrs but may take upto 4hrs i.e.
next execution cycle. With current PR we are making sure the `cron
execution interval > refresh rate`.
## Description
Fixed the git discard failure when there is a conflict between existing
datasource name and datasource from pulled version.
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes#25954
This response object to `PUT /env` API appears to indicate whether
restart is required or not, because it includes the field
`isRestartRequired`, but this is actually not used at all on the client.
We might've used it in the past, but we don't anymore. This is a
misleading response DTO, and it's already wasted my time thrice! 😭
## Description
We are facing the cyclical dependecy issue with tenant service and
feature flag service on EE codebase. This is required to force update
feature flag whenever the tenant license is updated. This PR updates the
implementation to use tenantId reference in feature flag service to fix
the above mentioned issue.
Corresponding EE PR:
https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith-ee/pull/2090
#### Type of change
- Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception)
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [x] Manual
- [x] JUnit
## 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
## Description
Adds unit execution time events for git status without fetch and git
fetch from remote APIs.
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes#26405
## Description
Fixes the export application api by adding the branch name
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes#24486
#### Type of change
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
>
>
## 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
> 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: Anagh Hegde <anagh@appsmith.com>
