## Description
Added cache for server
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
#### Media
#### Type of change
- New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
## 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
- [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-)
- [ ] 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**
- Implemented caching for release builds to enhance efficiency and speed
up the deployment process.
- **Chores**
- Updated build workflow with additional steps for caching operations.
- **Documentation**
- Confirmed no changes to public API documentation are needed as this
update does not alter exported entities.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
## Description
- Skipping TBD for every push on release branch
- TBD will run once a day on the scheduled cron
- People can still run TBD on-demand
#### Type of change
- Workflow Change
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai
-->
## Summary by CodeRabbit
- **Chores**
- Updated the CI/CD workflow to trigger Docker image builds on pushes to
the "master" branch instead of the "release" branch.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
## Description
> added event_name schedule in client-build and rts-build to run them in
scheduled run as well
#### Type of change
- Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception)
>
>
## Testing
> running TBP workflow to ensure nothing is impacted.
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [x] TBP Run
## 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
- **Chores**
- Updated build workflows to trigger on scheduled events.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
## Description
- Allowing static split of cypress specs in CI runs.
- Optimised the spec allocation by considering the duration history for
each spec.
- Updated the affecting workflows to utilise the static split
#### Type of change
- Workflows
- Cypress-split pugin
## Testing
- Workflow run
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai
-->
## Summary by CodeRabbit
- **New Features**
- Introduced a new environment variable to optimize test resource
allocation during CI/CD processes.
- Enhanced Cypress testing with dynamic and static test splitting
strategies.
- **Refactor**
- Refactored Cypress plugin configuration to support conditional test
splitting based on the environment variable.
- **Chores**
- Updated GitHub Actions workflows to include new environment variables
for test runs.
- **Documentation**
- Updated internal documentation to reflect changes in test setup and
execution strategies.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
## Description
> Added a cron job for the TBP workflow to run at 6 am on weekdays-
Daily Promotion analysis purpose
#### Type of change
- Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception)
## Testing
- To check if the workflow is triggered as expected
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [x] Manual
## 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
Currently, when we run the server build without tests, we still try to
check the cache for run-result, but as the cache is not present during
the first run, where we just build the server, and on the success of the
workflow, actions/cache create the cache with the specified key,
Which is creating an issue while we try to save the actual run-result
cache when we run the tests in server-unit-tests.
Solution :
- Added a condition to check the cache present only while running tests
#### Type of change
- Workflow changes (server-build.yml)
## Testing
- Workflow run
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai
-->
## Summary by CodeRabbit
- **Refactor**
- Updated the server build process to conditionally skip certain steps
based on user input.
- **Chores**
- Improved automation in the build workflow to enhance efficiency.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
## Description
- Added the required logic to rerun only the failed tests in JUnit in
server-build.yml
- Separated the build and test steps to accommodate our requirements
#### Type of change
- Workflow changes (server-build.yml)
## Testing
- [x] [Workflow
run](https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/actions/runs/7164444771?pr=29469)
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai
-->
## Summary by CodeRabbit
- **Documentation**
- Enhanced comments for clarity in test methods related to application
creation, duplication, and cloning.
- Updated comments to reflect changes in test assertions for application
visibility and user anonymity.
- **Tests**
- Modified assertions in `ActionServiceCE_Test` to align with expected
behavior in view mode.
- Added new assertions and comments in `ApplicationServiceCETest` to
improve test coverage and documentation.
- **Chores**
- Improved the server build workflow with better caching and error
handling mechanisms.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
Also modifying server-build to store the failed builds as an artifact that can be used later
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai
-->
## Summary by CodeRabbit
- **New Features**
- Implemented a new step in the build process to upload reports for
failed tests, enhancing visibility into test failures during continuous
integration.
- **Bug Fixes**
- Adjusted test assertions in `AnalyticsServiceCEImplTest` to correctly
reflect the expected behavior.
- Modified the assertion logic in `ApplicationServiceCETest` to ensure
the test aligns with the intended application validation process.
- **Documentation**
- No user-facing documentation changes in this release.
- **Refactor**
- Introduced `TestResultLoggerExtension` to improve test failure logging
and reporting.
- **Tests**
- Enabled auto-detection of JUnit Jupiter extensions to streamline the
testing framework setup.
- **Chores**
- No significant chores affecting end-users in this release.
- **Revert**
- No reverts in this release.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
Leveraging the library
[cypress-grep](https://github.com/cypress-io/cypress/tree/develop/npm/grep).
Using this we can tag testcases with relevant tags and use it to run
specific testcases.
**Command to run in local:**
`CYPRESS_grepTags=@tag.Binding,@tag.Git npx cypress run
`
Pass the tags to CYPRESS_grepTags argument and only the test cases which
has the
tags passed will be picked to run. ex `@tag.Binding and @tag.Git` are
the tag names here.
**Tags can be added in the description on the test case like**
`{ tags: ["@tag.Datasource"] }` for a single tag
`{ tags: ["@tag.Datasource", "@tag.Git"] }` for multiple tags
**How to run In CI**
Single Tag - `/ok-to-test tags=@tag.Binding`
Multiple tag - `/ok-to-test tags=@tag.Binding,@tag.Git`
**TODOs in the next release:**
- [ ] Add tags.ts file with all needed tags
- [ ] Add tags to remaining spec files.
- [ ] Fail the PR run if tags added are not from tag.ts and post the
message on the same
#### Type of change
- Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception)
- This change requires a documentation update
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [x] Manual
- [ ] JUnit
- [ ] Jest
- [x] Cypress
## 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
- [x] My changes generate no new warnings
- [x] 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
- [ ] 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
- [x] 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**
- Added a search functionality to the app.
- **Enhancements**
- Integrated search bar at the top of the `Hero` component and a
`Search` component to the `App` component.
- Added styles for the search bar.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
---------
Co-authored-by: Arpit Mohan <arpit@appsmith.com>
## Description
- Now saving the docker image in cache instead of uploading it as an
artefact to save time
#### Type of change
- Workflow changes
## Testing
- Workflow run
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai
-->
## Summary by CodeRabbit
- **Chores**
- Updated CI workflows to use GitHub Actions cache for Docker images
instead of uploading to artifacts.
- Removed `restore-keys` from Yarn dependency caching for a more
streamlined caching process.
- Improved conditions for Docker image caching to enhance CI efficiency.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
Full git history is required by the chromatic plugin to work properly &
publish the site. Hence adding `fetch-depth: 0` back into the Chromatic
workflow
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai
-->
## Summary by CodeRabbit
- **Chores**
- Updated GitHub Actions workflows to fetch the full Git history for
more accurate CI/CD operations.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
## Description
- This PR makes changes to run the Client & Server unit tests in
parallel to Cypress for TBP workflow
- Removes invalid input restore-keys, adding cache-hit
- Remove save cache from /workflows/client-unit-tests.yml
- Making ci-test, client-unit-tests, server-unit-tests mandatory for
ci-test-result
#### Type of change
- Yml file update (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
## Testing
>
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- TBP workflow run
## Checklist:
#### QA activity:
- [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after workflow run & tests were
identified to run parallel to cypress
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai
-->
## Summary by CodeRabbit
- **Refactor**
- Updated GitHub Actions workflows to use the latest version of
`actions/checkout`.
- Improved CI/CD pipeline by adding conditional job definitions for
server and client unit tests.
- Enhanced workflow logic to differentiate between pull request and
branch push triggers for more accurate code checkouts.
- Streamlined caching strategy by removing `restore-keys` configuration
for better dependency management during builds.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
RTS is already getting the version from `info.json`.
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai
-->
## Summary by CodeRabbit
- **Chores**
- Streamlined the build process by removing unnecessary versioning
steps.
- **Refactor**
- Simplified the Docker image tagging process during builds.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
This code is duplicated from generate_info_json.sh script, but that's
temporary. We'll be moving towards not having the version computation in
the workflows at all, and all components getting version information
from `info.json` alone. Essentially treating `info.json` as the source
of truth for this.
> Pull Request Template
>
> Use this template to quickly create a well written pull request.
Delete all quotes before creating the pull request.
>
## Description
> Add a TL;DR when description is extra long (helps content team)
>
> Please include a summary of the changes and which issue has been
fixed. Please also include relevant motivation
> and context. List any dependencies that are required for this change
>
> Links to Notion, Figma or any other documents that might be relevant
to the PR
>
>
#### 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
- **Refactor**
- Adjusted indentation in the build workflow for improved readability
and consistency.
- **Documentation**
- No alterations to exported entities' declarations.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
---------
Co-authored-by: Arpit Mohan <mohanarpit@users.noreply.github.com>
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai
-->
## Summary by CodeRabbit
- **Chores**
- Updated GitHub Actions workflows to use `actions/checkout@v4` for
improved performance and reliability.
- Removed `fetch-depth` parameter to simplify checkout steps across
various workflows.
- Standardized quote usage for consistency in workflow files.
- **Documentation**
- Adjusted formatting and descriptions in workflow files for better
clarity and readability.
- **Refactor**
- Aligned multiple workflow files to follow a consistent structure and
naming convention.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
fetch-depth 0 causes the Github workflow to checkout the entire Git
history. This is not required. We only need to check out the head of the
commit. By default, actions/checkout has fetch-depth=1, hence removing
it from the workflow completely for simplicity.
## Summary by CodeRabbit
- **Chores**
- Updated `umani/changed-files` action to v4.1.0 across various workflow
files.
- Updated `peter-evans/create-or-update-comment` action to v3 in
multiple workflow files.
- Minor adjustments to workflow syntax for consistency and accuracy.
- **Documentation**
- Corrected URLs in Slack notification messages to ensure accuracy.
- **Refactor**
- Removed redundant job configurations and steps related to caching and
storing run results.
- Streamlined environment variable usage by sourcing values from
secrets.
- **Style**
- Standardized quote usage in workflow files for file matching patterns.
- **Bug Fixes**
- Fixed URLs in echo statements within `test-build-docker-image.yml` to
point to the correct "cypress-dashboard" path segment.
- Updated `slack_color` and `slack_icon` values to better reflect
success and failure states in notifications.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
## Description
If the user types `ok-to-test tags=Git`, Cypress should only run the
specs marked with the Git tag
Related to #28943
#### Type of change
- New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
## Testing
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [ ] Manual
- [ ] JUnit
- [ ] Jest
- [ ] Cypress
#### 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
## 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
- [ ] 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
- This PR removes extra slash ymls
#### Type of change
- Yml file update fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
## Checklist:
#### QA activity:
- [X] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after Cypress tests were reviewed
## Description
- Skip flaky tests on demand
#### Type of change
- Dime defenders changes to accommodate the flaky spec skip on demand
- Workflow changes to control the skip flaky functionality
## Description
- Map Chart Automation
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
- Added tests for Map Chart Widget
#### Type of change
- Cypress
## Testing
>
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [x] Cypress
>
>
## Checklist:
#### QA activity:
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by SDET/manual QA
- [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after Cypress tests were reviewed
## Description
- This PR includes [SetWidget property
validation](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/issues/2409) script
- Identified flaky test path updation to point to Cypress dashboard
flaky test list
**Flaky fixes for below:**
- Api URL enter - added some settling time
- ClientSide/BugTests/AbortAction_Spec.ts - with new url
- ClientSide/Binding/Button_Text_WithRecaptcha_spec.js
- Updated from agHelper.SelectDropdownList to
propPane.SelectPropertiesDropDown
- /ClientSide/Widgets/Datepicker/DatePicker3_spec.ts
- /ClientSide/Widgets/ListV2/DataIdentifierProperty_spec.ts - split
- ServerSide/Postgres_DataTypes/Array_Spec.ts
- Radio/Radio2_spec.ts
- ListV2/DataIdentifier_spec.ts
- Postgres_DataTypes/UUID_Spec.ts
- Widgets/Multiselect/Multi_Select_Tree_spec.js
#### Type of change
- Script fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
## Testing
>
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [X] Cypress CI runs
## Checklist:
#### QA activity:
- [X] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after Cypress tests were reviewed
This will use the Appsmith base image which contains all the downloads
needed, so the image build in daily CI should be much more reliable, and
quite likely much faster.
All workflows have already been updated to use the BASE build argument
to set the base image.
Once this is merged, building the Docker image will fail if `BASE` build
argument is not passed. This is that the base is set explicitly
everywhere to not cause any confusion.
The deleted content has been moved to
8d34a2ac28/deploy/docker/base.dockerfile,
which builds the `base-*:*` images.
## Description
- This PR removes the env's from Setting up Cypress step
#### Type of change
- Yml update (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
## Testing
>
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [X] Cypress CI limited runs
## Checklist:
#### QA activity:
- [X] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after changes were reviewed
The layers in the Dockerfile that depend on downloading large files from
external sources, doesn't have to run every day, or at every PR. We
tried using Docker's caching configuration, but it's not as reliable as
we'd have liked.
A separate base image lends us much more control over the how long we
cache the downloaded files and how often we redo this.
This PR only _adds_ the base image. It doesn't change anything in the
build of the existing Docker image. That'll happen once we have the base
images for `release` and `master` already present on DockerHub.
## Description
- This PR adds tests for validating the set properties for widget across
all objects
- Covers only some scenarios from [Test
#2409](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/issues/2409)
- Adds the failure cypress dashboard link directly in case of CI run
failures
- Flaky fix - Sanity/Datasources/SMTPDatasource_spec.js
- Cypress.on - exception & fail handling updated
- InvokeDispatchOnStore() created for logout/login Internal server
errors - trial fix for RBACFunctionalTests/OthersTabPermission_spec.js
- EditAppFromAppHover() improved to take app name also - trial fix
PropertyPane_Connections_Error_spec.js
- Flaky fix - TableV2_Property_ToggleJs_With_Binding_spec.js
- Flaky fix - Radio2_spec.ts
- Flaky fix - API_TestExecuteWithDynamicBindingInUrl_spec.ts
- Flaky fix - Button_with_API_spec.js
- AssertTableInVirtuosoList() improved to handle the DS name not present
in EE scenario also
- Flaky fix - Button_with_API_spec.js
- Flaky fix - Table_Style_ToggleJS_spec.js
- Flaky fix - Tablev2_Style_ToggleJS_spec
#### Type of change
- Script update (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
## Testing
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [X] Cypress CI runs
## Checklist:
#### QA activity:
- [X] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after Cypress tests were reviewed
## Description
PR to add the signature verification for tenant feature flags. With this
PR we will make sure feature flags those are getting reported from CS
can't be mocked.
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes https://github.com/appsmithorg/cloud-services/issues/1394
#### Type of change
- New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
## Testing
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [x] Manual
- [ ] JUnit
- [ ] 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
- [ ] 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
- Bumped cypress version
- Updated workflow files to use latest cypress GitHub-action
#### Type of change
- Workflow files
- Package.json
- yarn.lock
## Testing
>
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [x] Cypress
---------
Co-authored-by: Aishwarya UR <aishwarya@appsmith.com>
## Description
- Map widget automation
#### Type of change
- Added spec to verify the map widget with all the possible settings
- Updated the workflows to include map widget spec for hosted runs and
not run for normal runs
## Testing
>
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [x] Cypress
>
>
## Checklist:
#### 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>
## Description
Added workflow to check if there is any custom colors or hex codes is
being used. This workflow will be checking for the anomalies in the
entire file that has been changed by the developer.
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/27839
#### 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
- [ ] 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
- [ ] 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:
- [ ] [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: Saroj <saroj@appsmith.com>
## Description
- This PR includes script for App level import for ds - MySql (non
Gsheet)
- Fixes flaky Replay_Editor_spec.js
#### Type of change
- Script update (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
## Testing
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [X] Cypress
## Checklist:
#### QA activity:
- [X] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after Cypress tests were reviewed
> Pull Request Template
>
> Use this template to quickly create a well written pull request.
Delete all quotes before creating the pull request.
>
## Description
> Add a TL;DR when description is extra long (helps content team)
>
> Please include a summary of the changes and which issue has been
fixed. Please also include relevant motivation
> and context. List any dependencies that are required for this change
>
> Links to Notion, Figma or any other documents that might be relevant
to the PR
>
>
#### 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
## Description
- Fixing the browser issue for gsheet tests
#### Type of change
- Workflow file changes
- plugin/index.js changes
## Testing
>
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [x] [Cypress
](https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/actions/runs/6248887548)
## Description
- This PR does below:
- Oracle - Create new table, insert data & select. tc #
[2358](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/issues/2358) tc #
[2360](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/issues/2358)
- Oracle - Alter the new table for 2 new columns, insert multiple rows
into table
- Oracle - Select * from table & select with condition tc #
[2359](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/issues/2359)
- Oracle - Add table widget from Suggested widget section, Deploy the
app & verify table data load
- Oracle - Back to Editor, Delete all queries, Delete DS
- Failure fix - ClientSide/Git/GitSync/Connection_spec.js fo CI runs
#### Type of change
- Script fix + update (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
## Testing
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [X] Cypress CI runs
## Checklist:
#### QA activity:
- [X] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after Cypress tests were reviewed
## Description
- This PR does below:
- Reverting hosted run slack notif since no new_failed_spec is set (to
set & then fix this)
- Push notif slack msg trial fix
#### Type of change
- Script fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
## Testing
>
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [X] Cypress CI runs
## Checklist:
#### QA activity:
- [X] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after Cypress tests were reviewed
## Description
- This PR adds Oracle validations
- 'Add more' validated from Oracle Ds page
- Tc's automated Tc
[#2204](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/issues/2204)
- Added a bit of sleep for keyboard actions (Enter, Escape, Delete)
- Added default param for datasources._host
- Oracle documentation verification added
- get cypress url dashboard url - step commented in ymls, as its no more
used
- Updating Slack message to also display the failing specs in notif
- ElasticSearch spec - update to check hosted run
- ServerSide/GenerateCRUD/MySQL2_Spec.ts - EntityExplore ds name miss
fix
- Update waitForServerRestart() timeout
#### Type of change
- Script fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
## Testing
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [X] Cypress CI runs
## Checklist:
#### QA activity:
- [X] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after Cypress tests were reviewed
## Description
- Adds validations for Oracle Ds to run in Hosted instance
- Trial fix for EmbedSettings/EmbedSettings_spec.js (checking the
Appsmith is starting page goes away on its own)
- Block_Execution.ts - updated to use Oracle mock data
- Oracle tests [TC
#2354](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/issues/2354), [TC
#2355](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/issues/2355), [TC
#2356](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/issues/2356), [TC
#2357](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/issues/2357) Automated
- Set Commit Message update for Hosted runs since now Airtable,
ElasticSearch are also part along with GSheet cases
- SMTP added verification on mail details (from, to, status, msg body
etc)
- Widgets/WidgetPropertySetters_spec.ts - Lint error case flaky fix
#### Type of change
- Script fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
## Testing
>
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [X] Cypress CI runs
## Checklist:
#### QA activity:
- [X] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after Cypress tests were reviewed
## Description
- This PR fixes the PR runs where single quotes can be present in PR
desc
---------
Co-authored-by: Saroj <43822041+sarojsarab@users.noreply.github.com>
## Description
- Fix gsheet tests
- Fix workflows to not upload the result file in case of success
#### Type of change
- spec file changes
- Workflow file changes
## Testing
>
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [x] Cypress
## Checklist:
#### 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
Move the files that are copied into the Docker image, into an `fs`
folder, that reflects the folder structure of that in the image. This
means two things right away:
1. A single `COPY` instruction in `Dockerfile` is enough to copy all the
files to their places.
2. The structure of files in the repo reflects that in the Docker image.
This makes working with the files/folders and troubleshooting with them
much easier.
❗ Note: **There's actually only 3 files changed, rest are just moved.**
## Description
- This PR updates the name of datasource method from 'AssertDSActive' to
'AssertDSInActiveList'
- Updated ci-test-limit.yml to include the flagsmith params
- Updates Postgress staging db name/creds
## Description
- This PR fixes the flakyness with error message in
ConnectionErrors_spec
- This PR adds validations for SMTP plugin (added documentation
verification + email sent successfully)
- Updating the Cypress Dashboard for new links
- Improve Widgets/Image/Image2_Spec.ts
- Flaky fix BugTests/Bug26716_Spec.ts
- ShowAllDatasources() added for direct navigation to Action DS list
- Fix ServerSide/GenerateCRUD/Postgres2_Spec.ts
- DeleteDatasouceFromActiveTab() improved
- Airtable - added documentation verification
- Airtable - Added widget binding & deploy App verification of Api
records data
- Datasources/MongoDatasource_spec.js - js to ts definition
- /EmbedSettings/EmbedSettings_spec.js - server restart timeout
increased
#### Type of change
- Script update (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
## Testing
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [X] Cypress CI runs
## Checklist:
#### QA activity:
- [X] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after Cypress tests were reviewed
## Description
- Updated the logic to use DimeDefenders spec split
- Updated ci-test-hosted, ci-test-limited and ci-test-custom-script
- Changes to handle when there is no spec to run in CI
#### Type of change
- DimeDefender script
- Workflows
## Testing
- Workflow run
## 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
> Pull Request Template
>
> Use this template to quickly create a well written pull request.
Delete all quotes before creating the pull request.
>
## Description
> Add a TL;DR when description is extra long (helps content team)
>
> Please include a summary of the changes and which issue has been
fixed. Please also include relevant motivation
> and context. List any dependencies that are required for this change
>
> Links to Notion, Figma or any other documents that might be relevant
to the PR
>
>
#### 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
## Description
- Update ci-custom-script to unblock push workflows
#### Type of change
- Workflow changes
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- Workflow run
## Description
- Add env variables to ci test limit and hosted workflow to use internal
cypress db
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
#### Type of change
- Workflow changes
## Testing
>
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- CI Run
## Description
- Fix cypress local run
#### 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
> Pull Request Template
>
> Use this template to quickly create a well written pull request.
Delete all quotes before creating the pull request.
>
## Description
> Add a TL;DR when description is extra long (helps content team)
>
> Please include a summary of the changes and which issue has been
fixed. Please also include relevant motivation
> and context. List any dependencies that are required for this change
>
> Links to Notion, Figma or any other documents that might be relevant
to the PR
>
>
#### 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
Runs cypress and perf tests on an Appsmith instance with an existing
DocumentDB backend instead of MongoDB.
Comment to trigger the run on a PR:
`/ok-to-test-with-documentdb`
## Description
- Update ce push workflow to use dime defenders
#### Type of change
- Workflow changes
## Testing
>
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [ ] Workflow run
>
>
This pull request adds the CodeSee workflow to your repository.
This workflow runs a code analysis on each time:
- a new PR is opened
- a new commit is pushed to an existing PR
- a PR is merged or a new commit is pushed directly to the default
branch
The analysis enables [code
visibility](https://www.codesee.io/what-is-code-visibility) for your
codebase: generating maps of your codebase, keeping existing maps
up-to-date, and automating code workflows.
Access the CodeSee web app at https://app.codesee.io/ or learn more at
https://docs.codesee.io. If you have any questions, please reach out to
support@codesee.io and we'll be happy to help.
Co-authored-by: codesee-maps[bot] <86324825+codesee-maps[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
Updated ad-hoc dp workflow to update the db with progress.
- This workflow should only be called via internal ops api.
- This workflow uses the internal ops api to patch data with the updates
on the workflow statuses.
---------
Co-authored-by: Shrikant Sharat Kandula <shrikant@appsmith.com>
## Description
- Fix for selected gsheet failure
- Added steps in ci-test-hosted to notify on slack
- Updated config to run the Airtable_basic_spec on the hosted instance
and skip it in regular runs
#### Type of change
- Cypress changes
- Workflow changes
## Testing
>
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [x] Cypress
## Checklist:
#### 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 adds a `/opt/appsmith/info.json` file to Docker images, with the
following sample content:
```json
{
"commitSha": "0521ba2c0d7a62cef3d4def66fc15b59cc34ceef",
"commitUrl": "0521ba2c0d",
"branch": "release",
"date": "2023-08-02T12:52:53+00:00",
"isCI": false
}
```
We're enabling this only for images built for DPs currently, and will
then extend to other workflows as well.
Notice that we copy `info.*json` instead of `info.json`. The reason is
so that the Docker build doesn't fail, even if the `info.json` file
doesn't exist. This lets us publish this to each workflow in turn,
slowly and carefully.
[Relevant Slack
conversation](https://theappsmith.slack.com/archives/C02MUD8DNUR/p1686197957141419).
## Description
- Fix cypress dashboard url for rerun for Git messages that comes in PR
runs
#### Type of change
- Workflow changes
## Testing
>
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- workflow run
## Description
- Added following regression scenarios for gsheet
1. Create query from active ds tab
2. Create query from ds details page
3. Generate CRUD page from active ds
4. Generate CRUD page from entity explorer
5. Added test to add query from global search
#### Type of change
- Cypress
## Testing
>
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [ ] Cypress
## Checklist:
#### 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
When running Appsmith release image, it's currently using production CS,
which is causing a lot of incompatibility related errors since `release`
moves much faster than prod.
This changes this. Note that for `:latest` and `:nightly` images, we do
NOT change this default. There's no change for Docker images with those
tags. We _only_ want change `:release` image, DP images, and images
built for Cypress runs.
## Description
- bump storybook version
- move stories to storybook package
- add dimensions for testing viewports
- improve some stories and types for argTable
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes#25534
#### 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)
- 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
- [ ] Jest
- [ ] Cypress
## 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
---------
Co-authored-by: Valera Melnikov <melnikov.vv@greendatasoft.ru>
## Description
- Fix for comments in case ci-test failure due to other steps
- Fixed the ci-test-result issue in ci-test-limited
#### Type of change
- Workflow file
## Testing
- Workflow run
This should enable using unchanged layers from the `release` image, as a
cache, and build PR images faster. We only do this for images built for
PRs and not for direct `release` or `master` branches.
## Description
- Fix for ci-test-limit comment issue on test failure
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
#### Type of change
- Workflow changes
## Testing
>
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- Workflow run
## Description
- Fix workflow commit message for scheduled hosted workflow
#### Type of change
- Workflow changes
## Testing
>
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- Workflow run
## Description
- Workflow fix for scheduled run for gsheet tests
#### Type of change
- Workflow changes
## Testing
>
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- Workflow run
## Description
- Automated below queries for gsheet
1. Fetch Details
2. Insert one
3. Insert many
4. Update one
5. Update many
6. Fetch many
7. Delete One
- Added workflow to schedule run for gsheet automated tests on the
hosted instance
- Added a new cypress config file which will be used to run the gsheet
tests
- Added tests for folowing permission/scope options `All access`,
`selected access`, `Read/write | All google sheets` and `Read | All
google sheets`
- Added negative scenarios
- Added tests to verify widget binding for both suggested widget and
drag n drop widget for both selected and all access permission/scope
#### Type of change
- Cypress
## Testing
>
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [x] Cypress
>
>
## Checklist:
#### 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
- Fix to use cypress dashboard for ci test
#### Type of change
- Workflow file changes
## Testing
>
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- workflow run
## Description
- Fix comment issue in PR for failed specs
#### Type of change
- Workflow file changes
## Testing
>
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- Workflow run
## Description
- Changes to enable rerun with custom script
#### Type of change
- Workflow file changes
## Testing
>
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- Workflow run
## Checklist:
#### Dev activity
#### 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
- Remove cypress env values for custom script run
#### 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
- [ ] 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>
## Description
- Fix to skip the commented lines from limited-tests.txt
#### Type of change
- Workflow file chnage
## Testing
>
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- Manual workflow run
## Description
- Fix the result job name fir limited test workflow
- It has below improvements
-- it will skip lines starting with # or // in limited-test.txt
-- Dynamically assign the matrix count, run through command it will take
5 runners and manual workflw run will take 60 runners
-- Cypress dashboard heading
-- Some other small improvements
#### 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
- [ ] 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>
## Description
- Add command to run ci-test-limited
#### 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
- [ ] 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
- Added ts file check in limited workflow
#### Type of change
- Workflow file
## Testing
>
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- Workflow run
On WDS PR's merge, we need to create a build for the release branch too
so that chromatic baselines is updated.
This PR updates the workflow to start a build on merge too.
Also, we can now remove build-storybook workflow as that is not needed
anymore since we will be building chroamtic on release also. We can use
`https://release--5f1e6db0ad879d0022744996.chromatic.com` to see the
storybook for release branch.
## Description
- Fix cypress dashboard link in pr comment
#### Type of change
- Workflow file changes
## Testing
>
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- Workflow run
## Description
- Fix extracting the cypress dashboard url in ci-test-result
#### Type of change
- Workflow file changes
## Testing
>
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- Workflow file changes
## Description
- Get the newly added files from the PR branch instead of commits for ts
check
- CI improvements, now added cypress dashboard link with the comments in
PR
- CI improvements removed the steps which saves un-necessary cache
#### Type of change
- Workflow file changes
## Testing
>
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- Workflow run
This PR adds the integration for chromatic which will help us catch
visual bugs in the WDS components.
The way it works is, the PR won't allowed to merge till reviewers
reviews all the changes in the components.
One thing to note is the workflow only works when there is a change in
design system files.
Fixes#21923
## Description
- Commented out the file check steps in client-build to unblock other
pr's and rework
#### Type of change
- Workflow file changes
## Testing
>
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- Workflow run
## Description
- Skipping the ts check for test files if not required, introduced a
input variable for the client build to control this
#### Type of change
- Workflow file
## Testing
>
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- Workflow run
## Description
- Added steps in client-build.yml to check the newly added files under
cypress/e2e
- Commenting in the PR with the file names in case of files written in
js
- Failing the workflow in the above case
#### Type of change
- client-build.yml changes
## Testing
>
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- Workflow run
---------
Co-authored-by: Aishwarya UR <aishwarya@appsmith.com>
This PR fixes incorrect diff calculation between base and head of the
pull request raised. This diff is used for determining if server tests
should run or not.
Related PR to this is :
https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/24731
