## Description
- Added workflow to build client and server without running tests
#### Type of change
- Added workflow file
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- Manual
## Description
Cleaned up template heading and section styles on PR template
- Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception)
---------
Co-authored-by: Hetu Nandu <hetu@appsmith.com>
## Description
Increased clientbuild runner
## Type of change
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Manual
### Test Plan
None
### Issues raised during DP testing
None
## 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:
- [ ] Test plan has been approved by relevant developers
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by QA
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by either SDET or
manual QA
- [ ] Organized project review call with relevant stakeholders after
Round 1/2 of QA
- [ ] Added Test Plan Approved label after reveiwing all Cypress test
## Description
- Added step to check the PR approval status
- Used another plugin for merge
## Type of change
- ci-merge-check.yml
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Github actions
## Checklist:
### QA activity:
- [ ] Test plan has been approved by relevant developers
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by QA
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by either SDET or
manual QA
- [ ] Organized project review call with relevant stakeholders after
Round 1/2 of QA
- [ ] Added Test Plan Approved label after reveiwing all Cypress test
## Description
- Added UPDATE_LABLES and update the rename variables with more
meaningful name
## Type of change
- ci-merge-check.yml
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Github Actions
## Checklist:
### QA activity:
- [ ] Test plan has been approved by relevant developers
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by QA
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by either SDET or
manual QA
- [ ] Organized project review call with relevant stakeholders after
Round 1/2 of QA
- [ ] Added Test Plan Approved label after reveiwing all Cypress test
## Description
- Added logging for auto merge in ci-merge-check
## Type of change
- ci-merge-check.yml
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Github actions
## Checklist:
### QA activity:
- [ ] Test plan has been approved by relevant developers
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by QA
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by either SDET or
manual QA
- [ ] Organized project review call with relevant stakeholders after
Round 1/2 of QA
- [ ] Added Test Plan Approved label after reveiwing all Cypress test
## Description
- Updated requirements for auto merge in ci-merge-check
## Type of change
- ci-merge-check.yml
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Github actions
## Checklist:
### QA activity:
- [ ] Test plan has been approved by relevant developers
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by QA
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by either SDET or
manual QA
- [ ] Organized project review call with relevant stakeholders after
Round 1/2 of QA
- [ ] Added Test Plan Approved label after reveiwing all Cypress test
## Description
- Fix for ci-merge-check.yml issues
## Type of change
- ci-merge-check.yml
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Github actions
## Checklist:
### QA activity:
- [ ] Test plan has been approved by relevant developers
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by QA
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by either SDET or
manual QA
- [ ] Organized project review call with relevant stakeholders after
Round 1/2 of QA
- [ ] Added Test Plan Approved label after reveiwing all Cypress test
## Description
- Consider the latest one if there are more than one 'Test plan
approved' output in the api
## Type of change
- ci-merge-check.yml
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Github Actions
## Checklist:
### QA activity:
- [ ] Test plan has been approved by relevant developers
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by QA
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by either SDET or
manual QA
- [ ] Organized project review call with relevant stakeholders after
Round 1/2 of QA
- [ ] Added Test Plan Approved label after reveiwing all Cypress test
## Description
- Fixing ci-test-result in ci-merge-check
- Added Authorisation header in the curl requests to support this in EE
## Type of change
- ci-merge-check.yml
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Github Actions
## Checklist:
### QA activity:
- [ ] Test plan has been approved by relevant developers
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by QA
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by either SDET or
manual QA
- [ ] Organized project review call with relevant stakeholders after
Round 1/2 of QA
- [ ] Added Test Plan Approved label after reveiwing all Cypress test
## Description
- Fix ci-merge-check issue
## Type of change
- ci-merge-check.yml
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Guthub actions
## Checklist:
### QA activity:
- [ ] Test plan has been approved by relevant developers
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by QA
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by either SDET or
manual QA
- [ ] Organized project review call with relevant stakeholders after
Round 1/2 of QA
- [ ] Added Test Plan Approved label after reveiwing all Cypress test
## Description
- Added logic to handle few more cases in ci-merge-check
## Type of change
- ci-merge-check.yml
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Github Actions
## Checklist:
### QA activity:
- [ ] Test plan has been approved by relevant developers
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by QA
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by either SDET or
manual QA
- [ ] Organized project review call with relevant stakeholders after
Round 1/2 of QA
- [ ] Added Test Plan Approved label after reveiwing all Cypress test
## Description
- Fix syntax error in ci-merge-check
## Type of change
- ci-merge-check.yml
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Github actions
## Checklist:
### QA activity:
- [ ] Test plan has been approved by relevant developers
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by QA
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by either SDET or
manual QA
- [ ] Organized project review call with relevant stakeholders after
Round 1/2 of QA
- [ ] Added Test Plan Approved label after reveiwing all Cypress test
## Description
- Modified the logic to pick the last comment for ci-merge-check
## Type of change
- ci-merge-check.yml
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Github actions
## Checklist:
### QA activity:
- [ ] Test plan has been approved by relevant developers
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by QA
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by either SDET or
manual QA
- [ ] Organized project review call with relevant stakeholders after
Round 1/2 of QA
- [ ] Added Test Plan Approved label after reveiwing all Cypress test
## Description
- Fix to fetch the sha id from client_payload instead of
event.pull_request in ci-merge-check
## Type of change
- ci-merge-check.yml
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Github actions
## Checklist:
### QA activity:
- [ ] Test plan has been approved by relevant developers
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by QA
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by either SDET or
manual QA
- [ ] Organized project review call with relevant stakeholders after
Round 1/2 of QA
- [ ] Added Test Plan Approved label after reveiwing all Cypress test
## Description
- Fix for ci-merge-check workflow
## Type of change
- ci-merge-check.yml
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Github actions
## Checklist:
### QA activity:
- [ ] Test plan has been approved by relevant developers
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by QA
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by either SDET or
manual QA
- [ ] Organized project review call with relevant stakeholders after
Round 1/2 of QA
- [ ] Added Test Plan Approved label after reveiwing all Cypress test
## Description
- Fixing ci-merge-check.yml
## Type of change
- ci-merge-check.yml
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Github actions
## Checklist:
### QA activity:
- [ ] Test plan has been approved by relevant developers
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by QA
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by either SDET or
manual QA
- [ ] Organized project review call with relevant stakeholders after
Round 1/2 of QA
- [ ] Added Test Plan Approved label after reveiwing all Cypress test
## Description
- This PR updates the text message that gets commented after a PR run
## Type of change
- Yml file update
## Checklist:
### QA activity:
- [X] Added Test Plan Approved label after reviewing all changes
## Description
- This fixes the Firestore spec that fails sometimes in CI due to all
runs accessing the same cloud collection for validation.
- This PR also adds comments to PR - if all cypress cases passed, right
now there is no comment
## Type of change
- Script update
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Cypress CI runs
## Checklist:
### QA activity:
- [X] Added Test Plan Approved label after reviewing all Cypress test
GitHub's Variables, unlike Secrets, don't get masked in the output, and
are ideal for non-secret... _variables_. I'm switching on such secret
here, and depending on our experience with this, we'll look to moving
more.
Of course, goes without saying, do NOT use these variables for secrets.
When in doubt, use Secrets.
[Learn more about
Variables](https://docs.github.com/en/actions/learn-github-actions/variables).
## Description
- Added 'Workflow run' and 'Commit' for the failed spec comments
## Type of change
- YML Changes
## How Has This Been Tested?
- CI run
## Checklist:
### QA activity:
- [ ] Test plan has been approved by relevant developers
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by QA
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by either SDET or
manual QA
- [ ] Organized project review call with relevant stakeholders after
Round 1/2 of QA
- [ ] Added Test Plan Approved label after reveiwing all Cypress test
---------
Co-authored-by: Aishwarya UR <aishwarya@appsmith.com>
The License key is unused in this repo. Setting it here is misleading,
and can cause confusions at best, or missed accidental License failures
at worst.
This PR removes the License key occurrences from `ci-test.yml`.
Note: Please review/approve only. Don't merge. This will likely cause a
conflict, so I'd like to be available when this is merged so I can
resolve the conflict. Thanks!
## Description
- This PR includes ElasticSearch as separate docker container inside CI
that can be used for running ElasticSearch datasource test cases in CI
## Type of change
- Yaml file update
## Checklist:
### QA activity:
- [ ] Added Test Plan Approved label after reviewing all changes
## Description
- This PR includes tests for Firestore ds - with querying & usage of
various fields in the query page
## Type of change
- New script
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Cypress CI runs
## Checklist:
### QA activity:
- [ ] Added Test Plan Approved label after reviewing all changes
## Description
- This PR introduces smoke & sanity tests into the CI pipeline, to
capture the failures early.
## Type of change
- CI Improvements
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Cypress runs on local PR workflows
## Checklist:
### QA activity:
- [X] Added Test Plan Approved label after reviewing all changes
---------
Co-authored-by: Saroj <saroj@appsmith.com>
## Description
- This PR adds the Flaky list application link into the git comments
section on completion of the run, so the PR owners have easy access to
it.
## Type of change
- Yml file update
## Checklist:
### QA activity:
- [X] Added Test Plan Approved label after reviewing all changes
## Description
- Upload an empty failed-spec-ci file if all the specs are passed
## Type of change
- YML file changes
## How Has This Been Tested?
- github actions
## Checklist:
### QA activity:
- [ ] Test plan has been approved by relevant developers
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by QA
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by either SDET or
manual QA
- [ ] Organized project review call with relevant stakeholders after
Round 1/2 of QA
- [ ] Added Test Plan Approved label after reveiwing all Cypress test
## Description
- Resetting the failed_spec_ci in case of success in ci-test.yml
## Type of change
- yml file changes
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Workflow run
## Checklist:
### QA activity:
- [ ] Test plan has been approved by relevant developers
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by QA
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by either SDET or
manual QA
- [ ] Organized project review call with relevant stakeholders after
Round 1/2 of QA
- [ ] Added Test Plan Approved label after reveiwing all Cypress test
## Description
- This PR includes Arango as separate docker container inside CI that
can be used for running Arango datasource test cases in CI
## Type of change
- Yml file update
## Checklist:
- [X] Added Test Plan Approved label after reviewing all changes
## Description
- Added dub points for failed-spec comment
## Type of change
- YML File changes
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Manual
## Checklist:
### QA activity:
- [ ] Test plan has been approved by relevant developers
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by QA
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by either SDET or
manual QA
- [ ] Organized project review call with relevant stakeholders after
Round 1/2 of QA
- [ ] Added Test Plan Approved label after reveiwing all Cypress test
## Description
- This PR adds the host for segment calls as localhost as opposed to
sending it to Segment itself
- Diverting segment calls to Localhost for Cypress CI runs &
intercepting the response
- Updated to Analytics spec to validate the enableTelemtry false state
- Bug 21191, validation included
- Welcome screen - not toggling off the Usage Details anymore
## Type of change
- Yml file update
- Script updates
## Checklist:
### QA activity:
- [X] Added Test Plan Approved label after reviewing all changes
## Description
- Added condition to fetch the specs failed in after hook in ci-test.yml
## Type of change
- YML file changes
-
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Manual
## Checklist:
### QA activity:
- [ ] Test plan has been approved by relevant developers
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by QA
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by either SDET or
manual QA
- [ ] Organized project review call with relevant stakeholders after
Round 1/2 of QA
- [ ] Added Test Plan Approved label after reveiwing all Cypress test
## Description
- Fix for combined-failed-spec-ci cache not found issue
## Type of change
- YML file changes
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Manual
## Checklist:
### QA activity:
- [ ] Test plan has been approved by relevant developers
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by QA
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by either SDET or
manual QA
- [ ] Organized project review call with relevant stakeholders after
Round 1/2 of QA
- [ ] Added Test Plan Approved label after reveiwing all Cypress test
## Description
- Updated the workflow files to use actions/cache@v3
## Type of change
- yml file changes
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Manual
## Checklist:
### QA activity:
- [ ] Test plan has been approved by relevant developers
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by QA
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by either SDET or
manual QA
- [ ] Organized project review call with relevant stakeholders after
Round 1/2 of QA
- [ ] Added Test Plan Approved label after reveiwing all Cypress test
## Description
- Reverting the use of combined-failed-spec-ci artifact instead of cache
## Type of change
- yml file changes
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Manual
## Checklist:
### QA activity:
- [ ] Test plan has been approved by relevant developers
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by QA
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by either SDET or
manual QA
- [ ] Organized project review call with relevant stakeholders after
Round 1/2 of QA
- [ ] Added Test Plan Approved label after reveiwing all Cypress test
## Description
- Deleting the combined-failed-spec-ci in ci-test-result
## Type of change
- Yml file changes
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Manual
## Checklist:
### QA activity:
- [ ] Test plan has been approved by relevant developers
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by QA
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by either SDET or
manual QA
- [ ] Organized project review call with relevant stakeholders after
Round 1/2 of QA
- [ ] Added Test Plan Approved label after reveiwing all Cypress test
## Description
- Deleting the failed-spec-ci once it is downloaded in ci-test-result to
avoid getting specs from older runs
## Type of change
- yml file changes
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Manual
## Checklist:
### QA activity:
- [ ] Test plan has been approved by relevant developers
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by QA
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by either SDET or
manual QA
- [ ] Organized project review call with relevant stakeholders after
Round 1/2 of QA
- [ ] Added Test Plan Approved label after reveiwing all Cypress test
- Removed WDS storybook from the client build.sh.
- Added workflow to deploy Vercel previews for release and prod.
- Added workflow to trigger event on commenting `/build-wds-preview` to
a PR.
## Description
- Removed the artifact deleting as we need the artifact in case of rerun
on cancel
## Type of change
- Workflow yml files
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Manual
## Checklist:
### QA activity:
- [ ] Test plan has been approved by relevant developers
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by QA
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by either SDET or
manual QA
- [ ] Organized project review call with relevant stakeholders after
Round 1/2 of QA
- [ ] Added Test Plan Approved label after reveiwing all Cypress test
## Description
- Updated the combined_failed_spec_ci path in ci-test.yml
## Type of change
- ci-test.yml
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Manual
## Checklist:
### QA activity:
- [ ] Test plan has been approved by relevant developers
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by QA
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by either SDET or
manual QA
- [ ] Organized project review call with relevant stakeholders after
Round 1/2 of QA
- [ ] Added Test Plan Approved label after reveiwing all Cypress test
The RTS slim image isn't used, at all. The `appsmith-ce` and
`appsmith-ee` images run RTS inside of them, and the slim container
setup doesn't support RTS at all.
## Description
- Removing the old combined failed spec file
## Type of change
- workflow files
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Manual
## Checklist:
### QA activity:
- [ ] Test plan has been approved by relevant developers
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by QA
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by either SDET or
manual QA
- [ ] Organized project review call with relevant stakeholders after
Round 1/2 of QA
- [ ] Added Test Plan Approved label after reveiwing all Cypress test
## Description
- This PR includes tests for Airtable ds - along with connection &
querying & usage of various fields in the query page
## Type of change
- New script (non-breaking change which test functionality of Airtable
data-source)
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Cypress CI runs
## Checklist:
### QA activity:
- [X] Added Test Plan Approved label after reviewing all changes
## Description
- This PR added AIRTABLE_BEARER as GitHub secret to be used by CI runs
## Type of change
- Adding new token
## Checklist:
### QA activity:
- [X] Added Test Plan Approved label after reviewing all changes
## Description
- This PR includes basic tests for connecting to a MsSQL ds & running
simple queries on it
## Type of change
- New script (non-breaking change which functional tests the MsSql ds)
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Cypress local & CI run
## Checklist:
### QA activity:
- [X] Added Test Plan Approved label after reviewing all Cypress test
## Description
- Deleting duplicate specs while commenting failed specs in the pr
## Type of change
- integration-tests-command.yml
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Manual
## Checklist
### QA activity:
- [X] Added Test Plan Approved label after reviewing all changes
## Description
- This PR removes the restarting of the MsSQL container which is
throwing error sometimes in CI runs - WARNING: Failed to load
/var/opt/mssql/mssql.conf ini file with error open
/var/opt/mssql/mssql.conf: no such file or directory
## Type of change
- yml file update
## Checklist:
### QA activity:
- [X] Added Test Plan Approved label after reviewing all changes
## Description
- This PR reverts the loading of data into MsSQL container with docker
exec - login timeout issue fixed.
## Type of change
- Yml file update (commenting two lines of code)
## Checklist:
### QA activity:
- [ ] Added Test Plan Approved label after reviewing all changes
## Description
- This PR init loads the data into MsSQL container after starting it
## Type of change
- Yml file update
## Checklist:
### QA activity:
- [ ] Added Test Plan Approved label after reviewing all changes
## Description
- This PR reverts the loading of data into MsSQL container with docker
exec, until JDBC driver issue fixed.
## Type of change
- Yml file update (commenting)
## Checklist:
### QA activity:
- [X] Added Test Plan Approved label after reviewing all changes
## Description
- This PR includes MsSQL as separate docker container inside CI that can
be used for running mssql ds test cases in CI
## Type of change
- Yml file update
## How Has This Been Tested?
- CI-Debugging tmate session
## Checklist:
### QA activity:
- [X] Added Test Plan Approved label after reviewing all changes
---------
Co-authored-by: Aishwarya UR <aishwarya@appsmith.com>
## Description
- Picking up the unique records from the specs from the failed specs in
ci-test.yml
## Type of change
- ci-test.yml
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Manual
## Checklist:
### QA activity:
- [ ] Test plan has been approved by relevant developers
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by QA
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by either SDET or
manual QA
- [ ] Organized project review call with relevant stakeholders after
Round 1/2 of QA
- [ ] Added Test Plan Approved label after reveiwing all Cypress test
## Description
- This PR includes MsSQL as separate docker container inside CI that can
be used for running mssql ds test cases in CI
## Type of change
- Yml file update
## Checklist:
### QA activity:
- [X] Added Test Plan Approved label after reviewing all changes
---------
Co-authored-by: Saroj <43822041+sarojsarab@users.noreply.github.com>
## Description
- Modified the logic to get the failed tests in ci-test.yml
## Type of change
- CI
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Manual
## Checklist:
### QA activity:
- [ ] Test plan has been approved by relevant developers
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by QA
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by either SDET or
manual QA
- [ ] Organized project review call with relevant stakeholders after
Round 1/2 of QA
- [ ] Added Test Plan Approved label after reveiwing all Cypress test
## Description
- Added step to delete the failed-spec-ci after combining all results to
address the issue
## Type of change
- ci
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Manual
## Checklist:
### QA activity:
- [ ] Test plan has been approved by relevant developers
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by QA
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by either SDET or
manual QA
- [ ] Organized project review call with relevant stakeholders after
Round 1/2 of QA
- [ ] Added Test Plan Approved label after reveiwing all Cypress test
## Description
- Fixing the working directory in perf-test.yml
## Type of change
- perf-test.yml
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Manual
## Checklist:
### QA activity:
- [ ] Test plan has been approved by relevant developers
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by QA
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by either SDET or
manual QA
- [ ] Organized project review call with relevant stakeholders after
Round 1/2 of QA
- [ ] Added Test Plan Approved label after reveiwing all Cypress test
## Description
- Updated the path to download the artifact in perf-test.yml
## Type of change
- perf-test.yml
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Manual
## Checklist:
### QA activity:
- [ ] Test plan has been approved by relevant developers
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by QA
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by either SDET or
manual QA
- [ ] Organized project review call with relevant stakeholders after
Round 1/2 of QA
- [ ] Added Test Plan Approved label after reveiwing all Cypress test
## Description
- Added steps to use the pre built docker image instead of building a
new one in perf-test.yml
## Type of change
- perf-test.yml
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Manual
## Checklist:
### QA activity:
- [ ] Test plan has been approved by relevant developers
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by QA
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by either SDET or
manual QA
- [ ] Organized project review call with relevant stakeholders after
Round 1/2 of QA
- [ ] Added Test Plan Approved label after reveiwing all Cypress test
## Description
- Modularised the docker image building
- Optimised the `install dependancies` step to reduce the time from 8
mins to 30-40 secs now
- Removed unnecessary steps from the ci-dubugging.yml
- Added ci-debug.sh file to ease the steps to run ngrok while running
ci-debugging
- Changes made to below files
1. integration-tests-command.yml
2. test-build-docker-image.yml
3. ci-test.yml
4. build-docker-image.yml
## Type of change
- integration-tests-command.yml
- test-build-docker-image.yml
- ci-test.yml
- build-docker-image.yml
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Manual
## Checklist:
### QA activity:
- [ ] Test plan has been approved by relevant developers
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by QA
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by either SDET or
manual QA
- [ ] Organized project review call with relevant stakeholders after
Round 1/2 of QA
- [ ] Added Test Plan Approved label after reveiwing all Cypress test
## Description
- This PR adds mapping for 6001 port from TED to run the OAuth cases in
CI
## Type of change
- Yml file update
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Local run with TED
## Checklist:
### QA activity:
- [ ] Added Test Plan Approved label after reviewing all changes
## Description
- Added ci-debugging.yml to enable local debugging
- Modularised docker image building with build-docker-image.yml
## Type of change
- ci-debugging.yml
- build-docker-image.yml
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Manual
## Checklist:
### QA activity:
- [ ] Test plan has been approved by relevant developers
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by QA
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by either SDET or
manual QA
- [ ] Organized project review call with relevant stakeholders after
Round 1/2 of QA
- [ ] Added Test Plan Approved label after reveiwing all Cypress test
## Description
- This PR updates the ci-test.yml file to empty the failed_spec_ci
folder which still holds the previoulsy (or attempt-1) failures & hence
prints the attempt-1 failures also in the attempt-2 git comment in PRs.
## Type of change
- ci-test.yml file update
## Checklist:
### QA activity:
- [X] Added Test Plan Approved label after reviewing all changes
## Description
- This PR changes the mapping port of GITEA TED form 3000 to 3001
because while building client/server locally Appsmith uses
localhost:3000
## Type of change
- Script yml update (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
## Checklist:
### QA activity:
- [X] Added Test Plan Approved label after reviewing the changes
## Description
Add ci test check command
Fixes # (issue)
Media
## Type of change
- New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Manual
### Test Plan
### Issues raised during DP testing
## 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:
- [ ] Test plan has been approved by relevant developers
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by QA
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by either SDET or
manual QA
- [ ] Organized project review call with relevant stakeholders after
Round 1/2 of QA
- [ ] Added Test Plan Approved label after reveiwing all Cypress test
---------
Co-authored-by: Aishwarya-U-R <91450662+Aishwarya-U-R@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Aishwarya UR <aishwarya@appsmith.com>
## Description
- This PR includes yml file update to remove the duplicate entry of
failing specs in github comments during PR oktotest runs
## Type of change
- Script fix
## Checklist:
### QA activity:
- [X] Added Test Plan Approved label after reviewing all changes
## Description
- Updated the pat to access appsmithorg/ci-oldstack
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Cypress
## Checklist:
### QA activity:
- [ ] Test plan has been approved by relevant developers
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by QA
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by either SDET or
manual QA
- [ ] Organized project review call with relevant stakeholders after
Round 1/2 of QA
- [ ] Added Test Plan Approved label after reveiwing all Cypress test
## Description
- Specifying the branch name to pull from ci-oldstack in ci-test.yml
## Type of change
- ci-test.yml
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Cypress
## Checklist:
### QA activity:
- [ ] Test plan has been approved by relevant developers
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by QA
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by either SDET or
manual QA
- [ ] Organized project review call with relevant stakeholders after
Round 1/2 of QA
- [ ] Added Test Plan Approved label after reveiwing all Cypress test
## Description
- Updated ci-test.yml to pull the old stack from a private repo instead
of S3
## Type of change
- ci-test.yml
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Cypress
## Checklist:
### QA activity:
- [ ] Test plan has been approved by relevant developers
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by QA
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by either SDET or
manual QA
- [ ] Organized project review call with relevant stakeholders after
Round 1/2 of QA
- [ ] Added Test Plan Approved label after reveiwing all Cypress test
## Description
- This PR Stops SSH which is run on port 22 for enabling it for Local
Gitea support from TED
## Type of change
- Ci-test yml file update:
## Checklist
### QA activity:
- [X] Added Test Plan Approved label after reviewing all changes
## Description
- This PR reverts https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/20471
## Type of change
- ci-test yml file update
## Checklist:
### QA activity:
- [X] Added Test Plan Approved label after reviewing all changes
## Description
This PR reverts https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/20471
## Type of change
- ci-test yml file update
## Checklist:
### QA activity:
- [X] Added Test Plan Approved label after reviewing all changes test
## Description
- This PR reverts #20471
## Type of change
- ci-test yml file update
## Checklist:
### QA activity:
- [X] Added Test Plan Approved label after reveiwing all changes
## Description
- This PR Stops SSH which is run on port 22 for enabling it for Local
Gitea support from TED
## Type of change
- Script update
## Checklist:
### QA activity:
- [X] Added Test Plan Approved label after reviewing the changes
## Description
- This PR adds the 3000 port mapping for the TED GITEA support for the
cypress tests
## Type of change
- Script update
## Checklist:
### QA activity:
- [X] Test plan has been peer reviewed by QA
- [X] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by either SDET or
manual QA
## Description
- Updated the if condition to run the ci-test
## Type of change
- ci-test.yml
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Cypress
## Checklist:
### QA activity:
- [ ] Test plan has been approved by relevant developers
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by QA
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by either SDET or manual QA
- [ ] Organized project review call with relevant stakeholders after Round 1/2 of QA
- [ ] Added Test Plan Approved label after reveiwing all Cypress test
## Description
- Modularising the ci-test
## Type of change
- Workflow files
## Checklist:
### QA activity:
- [ ] Test plan has been approved by relevant developers
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by QA
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by either SDET or
manual QA
- [ ] Organized project review call with relevant stakeholders after
Round 1/2 of QA
- [ ] Added Test Plan Approved label after reveiwing all Cypress test
## Description
> Add back setup of ui nginx environment using docker while setting up
tests
Fixes # [(issue)](https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/20124)
> if no issue exists, please create an issue and ask the maintainers
about this first
## Type of change
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Manual
## 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
- [ ] My changes generate no new warnings
- [ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [ ] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag
### QA activity:
- [ ] Test plan has been approved by relevant developers
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by QA
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by either SDET or
manual QA
- [ ] Organized project review call with relevant stakeholders after
Round 1/2 of QA
- [ ] Added Test Plan Approved label after reveiwing all Cypress test
## Description
- This PR includes the script updates for connecting to TED Git instead
of actual Github for running tests
## Type of change
- New script changes to connect to TED Git
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Cypress CI runs
## Checklist:
### QA activity:
- [X] Test plan has been approved by relevant developers
- [X] Test plan has been peer reviewed by QA
- [X] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by either SDET or
manual QA
- [X] Organized project review call with relevant stakeholders after
Round 1/2 of QA
- [X] Added Test Plan Approved label after reveiwing all Cypress test
## Description
- This PR skips the upgrade spec until its fully functional
## Type of change
- Script fix
## Checklist:
### QA activity:
- [X] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by either SDET or
manual QA
Small change to add the performance label independently to any issue. We
have a few labels that belong to the performance team, ex: perf infra,
so that should still kick in the rest of the automation
Set the pr number as 0 for push event.
> Pull Request Template
>
> Use this template to quickly create a well written pull request.
Delete all quotes before creating the pull request.
## Description
> 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
> Add a TL;DR when description is extra long (helps content team)
Fixes # (issue)
> if no issue exists, please create an issue and ask the maintainers
about this first
Media
> A video or a GIF is preferred. when using Loom, don’t embed because it
looks like it’s a GIF. instead, just link to the video
## Type of change
> Please delete options that are not relevant.
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
- New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
- Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing
functionality to not work as expected)
- Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception)
- This change requires a documentation update
## How Has This Been Tested?
> Please describe the tests that you ran to verify your changes. Provide
instructions, so we can reproduce.
> Please also list any relevant details for your test configuration.
> Delete anything that is not important
- Manual
- Jest
- Cypress
### Test Plan
> Add Testsmith test cases links that relate to this PR
### Issues raised during DP testing
> Link issues raised during DP testing for better visiblity and tracking
(copy link from comments dropped on this PR)
## Checklist:
### Dev activity
- [ ] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [ ] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [ ] My changes generate no new warnings
- [ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [ ] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag
### QA activity:
- [ ] Test plan has been approved by relevant developers
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by QA
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by either SDET or
manual QA
- [ ] Organized project review call with relevant stakeholders after
Round 1/2 of QA
- [ ] Added Test Plan Approved label after reveiwing all Cypress test
## Description
- This PR moves all specs from slim to fat container to run tests underneath it
- Fat has the actual libraries that are being shipping to customers, hence this PR
- Also includes moving Git tests from using GitHub to Gitea
## Type of change
- New run (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Cypress CI Fat runs
## Checklist:
### QA activity:
- [X] Test plan has been approved by relevant developers
- [X] Test plan has been peer reviewed by QA
- [X] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by either SDET or manual QA
- [X] Organized project review call with relevant stakeholders after Round 1/2 of QA
- [X] Added Test Plan Approved label after reveiwing all Cypress test
Co-authored-by: yatinappsmith <84702014+yatinappsmith@users.noreply.github.com>
## Description
- This PR removes the Upgrade workflow from being triggered in oktotest
## Type of change
- Yml Script fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
## Description
- Appsmith Upgrade Test
## Type of change
- Cypress
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Cypress
## Checklist:
### QA activity:
- [ ] Test plan has been approved by relevant developers
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by QA
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by either SDET or
manual QA
- [ ] Organized project review call with relevant stakeholders after
Round 1/2 of QA
- [ ] Added Test Plan Approved label after reveiwing all Cypress test
Co-authored-by: Aishwarya UR <aishwarya@appsmith.com>
Add JAVA setup step to perf tests in test build workflow.
This is a possible fix for perf tests on running because backend server
was not up.
Co-authored-by: Satish Gandham <hello@satishgandham.com>
## Description
Hides the list of failed tests behind a spoiler to avoid making PR pages
very long
Fixes # N/A
## Type of change
- Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception)
## Description
Fixes # (issue)
## Type of change
(None of these options are relevant in this scenario, hence the PR)
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
- New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
- Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing
functionality to not work as expected)
- This change requires a documentation update
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Jest
- Cypress
### Test Plan
### 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:
- [ ] Test plan has been approved by relevant developers
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by QA
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by either SDET or
manual QA
- [ ] Organized project review call with relevant stakeholders after
Round 1/2 of QA
- [ ] Added Test Plan Approved label after reveiwing all Cypress test
## Description
Reverts the changes made to perf job in ui-build-workflow as the perf tests are getting skipped.
Co-authored-by: Satish Gandham <hello@satishgandham.com>
This upgrade takes care of our move to JDK 17, Spring Boot 3.0.1 and a
few other security upgrades along the way.
Fixes#18993
TODO:
- [x] Check CI changes for Java 17
- [x] Check vulnerability report
- [x] Mongock needs an upgrade
- [x] Add JVM args at all possible places for exposing java.time module
- [x] Add type adapters everywhere / use the same config for type
adapters everywhere
Remove perf-tests from /ok-to-test temporarily.
**Why**
Switch to github runners is causing an issue with perf tests, disabling until that is resolved.
Co-authored-by: Satish Gandham <hello@satishgandham.com>
## Description
Ci fix run result due to deprecated
Fixes # (issue)
Media
## Type of change
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
## How Has This Been Tested?
code reivew
### Test Plan
### Issues raised during DP testing
## Checklist:
### Dev activity
- [ ] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [ ] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [ ] My changes generate no new warnings
- [ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works
- [ ] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag
### QA activity:
- [ ] Test plan has been approved by relevant developers
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by QA
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by either SDET or manual QA
- [ ] Organized project review call with relevant stakeholders after Round 1/2 of QA
- [ ] Added Test Plan Approved label after reveiwing all Cypress test
## Description
Comment failing tests to PR
Fixes #
## Type of change
- New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
## How Has This Been Tested?
Code review. Tested in local fork
### 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
- [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:
- [ ] Test plan has been approved by relevant developers
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by QA
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by either SDET or manual QA
- [ ] Organized project review call with relevant stakeholders after Round 1/2 of QA
- [ ] Added Test Plan Approved label after reveiwing all Cypress test
* Fix perf test failure due to a wrong step added earlier
* Remove all the steps added to make perf tests work on EE
Co-authored-by: Satish Gandham <hello@satishgandham.com>
## Description
- This PR adds a new fat-migration.yml file which will run all cases in fat container instead of dev.app.appsmith
- This PR will not affect any existing Push/Workflow dispatches as its a separate action file
- Moving to fat container will not be put into action until RBAC is live - so as to not trigger any new challenge at last minute
## Type of change
- New .yml file
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Cypress CI runs
## Checklist:
### QA activity:
- [X] Test plan has been approved by relevant developers
- [X] Test plan has been peer reviewed by QA
- [X] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by either SDET or manual QA
- [X] Organized project review call with relevant stakeholders after Round 1/2 of QA
- [X] Added Test Plan Approved label after reveiwing all Cypress test
* - Add missing env variables to fix perf tests failures in EE
* - Delete source maps on CI only for EE
* - Add the additional steps that might be required for running perf tests on EE
* Update if condition
* Update if condition
* Switch to bash from using sh in build.sh
* Check if the server started later
* Update the check to see if the server has started
Co-authored-by: Satish Gandham <hello@satishgandham.com>
## Description
added video log field to issue template
## Type of change
- chores; changes in the issue template
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Not required
* Rearrange client build steps
* Remove PR from the run meta insert query
* Add repo to the query
Co-authored-by: Satish Gandham <hello@satishgandham.com>
* - Add S3 credentials to environment
- Change the workflow name
- Create performance run meta data record at the begining.
* Fix a typo
* Fix a typo
* Store DB credentials as plain values instead of JSON
* Fix SQL insert query
* Add missing secrets
* Continue even if the meta creation fails
* Fix SQL insert command
* Rename workflow
Co-authored-by: Satish Gandham <hello@satishgandham.com>
* Add option to run only perf tests on github
* Add new line at the end of the file
* - Run the artifacts step even on failure
- Add link to the perf run details
- Remove the perf comment on the PR
Co-authored-by: Satish Gandham <hello@satishgandham.com>
## Description
- This PR includes changes for starting rts server for AST changes to take effect
## Type of change
- yml file updates
## Checklist:
- [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
## Description
- This PR includes changes for starting rts server for AST changes to take effect
## Type of change
- yml file updates
## Checklist:
- [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
* update rts logic to use updated shared AST logic
* Make changes to naming conventions
* Add test cases for RTS and rename ast functions
* Add running jest test to RTS workflow
* Install dependencies and then trigger jest tests in workflow
* Close server connection after test ends
* Remove logs
* Improve jest test descriptions
Fix ci cache & rts build for push workflow
## Description
Fix ci cache & rts build for push workflow
## Type of change
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
## How Has This Been Tested?
code review
## Checklist:
- [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
## Description
Fix ui-test cache
Fixes # (issue)
## Type of change
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
## How Has This Been Tested?
Code review
## Checklist:
- [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
## Description
Fix ui-test cache
Fixes # (issue)
## Type of change
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
## How Has This Been Tested?
Code review
## Checklist:
- [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
## Description
The problem with the RTS workflow after the induction of AST parsing was that while copying the `node_modules`, Ubuntu doesn't follow the symlink and copy the content. It simply copies the symlink as is. This causes issues for RTS service to start.
## Type of change
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Personal repository
## Checklist:
- [ ] 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
## Description
The depot docker step wasn't initialized. This was causing Docker builds to fail.
## Type of change
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Relying on CI
## Checklist:
- [ ] 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
Refer to #16020 for details. This PR has been opened since we could not modify the previous PR since it's a contribution by an external contributor.
Co-authored-by: kylegalbraith <kyle.galbraith459@gmail.com>
## Description
- This PR makes changes to run CI on latest stable Chrome always
## Type of change
- Browser update
## Checklist:
- [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
## Description
- This PR makes changes for moving from Chrome to Electron browser for CI runs & fixes the git hub runners failure issue incases of Chrome version updates
## Type of change
- Browser name update
## Checklist:
- [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
Moving server builds to Buildjet to confirm if it's faster and more reliable
Also, cleaning up some CI workflows to remove references to release-frozen branch.
## Description
This PR adds the string `Community` along with the Appsmith version. This will help users identify the type of instance that they are running.
## Type of change
- New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
## How Has This Been Tested?
Manually
## Checklist:
- [ ] 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
* Clean up the perf folder and update integration commnds to use the new repo
* Use a different token for github auth
* Update the token
* - Remove directory listing command
* Move perf checkout command to the back
* resolve conflicts
* Add directory listing code
* Fix an issue with directory listing
* - Remove directory listing code
Co-authored-by: Satish Gandham <satish@appsmith.com>
* Clean up the perf folder and update integration commnds to use the new repo
* Use a different token for github auth
* Update the token
* - Remove directory listing command
* Move perf checkout command to the back
* resolve conflicts
* Add directory listing code
* Fix an issue with directory listing
Co-authored-by: Satish Gandham <satish@appsmith.com>
* Clean up the perf folder and update integration commnds to use the new repo
* Use a different token for github auth
* Update the token
* - Remove directory listing command
* Move perf checkout command to the back
* resolve conflicts
* Add directory listing code
Co-authored-by: Satish Gandham <satish@appsmith.com>
* Clean up the perf folder and update integration commnds to use the new repo
* Use a different token for github auth
* Update the token
* - Remove directory listing command
Co-authored-by: Satish Gandham <satish@appsmith.com>
* Clean up the perf folder and update integration commnds to use the new repo
* Use a different token for github auth
* Update the token
Co-authored-by: Satish Gandham <satish@appsmith.com>
* Clean up the perf folder and update integration commnds to use the new repo
* Use a different token for github auth
Co-authored-by: Satish Gandham <satish@appsmith.com>
* Run perf tests only on buildjet machine
* - Set chrome process priority to maximum to stabilise the run data
* Update index.js
* Update perf.js
* Update index.js
* - Move around args
* - Add --no-sandbox option to initial setup
* -We don't need sudo on the main script, we can use sudo in node scripts to set process priority
* - Some tweaks to the perf scripts.
* - Remove no-sandbox option in puppeteer launch
* - Remove sudo at unnecessary places
* - Add code to force grabage collection in chrome
* Update logins and some cleanup
* Remove unsed import
Co-authored-by: Satish Gandham <satish@appsmith.com>
Reverts #14636
Reverting this change for now because there is an issue when re-running the failed specs. The action is unable to find the correct directory.
We use github actions cache to store jobstate for the previous runs. The default cache is invalidated incase the job fails. To support rerunning only failed tests, we use custom cache martijnhols/actions-cache@v3. Recently new changes into custome cache broke our workflow https://github.com/MartijnHols/actions-cache.
Co-authored-by: Yatin <yatin.chaubal@gmail.com>
* Adding visual tests for layout validation
* updating screenshot to match CI's screenshot resolution
* updating screenshot as per CI
* setting failure threshold for the image comparision
Co-authored-by: Parthvi Goswami <parthvigoswami@Parthvis-MacBook-Pro.local>
