71d67185c4
504 Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Rudraprasad Das
|
71d67185c4
|
feat: dsl migration with server (#28518)
## Description 1. Shifts DSL migration logic to @shared/dsl 2. Exposes /migrate/dsl endpoint on rts 3. Integrates RTS endpoint to backend for serving migrated pages 4. Introduces feature flag to switch between client-based and server-based on-demand migration #### PR fixes following issue(s) Fixes #26783, #26784, #26980 #### Type of change - New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality) ## Testing > #### How Has This Been Tested? > Please describe the tests that you ran to verify your changes. Also list any relevant details for your test configuration. > Delete anything that is not relevant - [x] Manual - [ ] JUnit - [x] Jest - [x] Cypress > > #### Test Plan > Add Testsmith test cases links that relate to this PR > > #### Issues raised during DP testing > Link issues raised during DP testing for better visiblity and tracking (copy link from comments dropped on this PR) > > > ## Checklist: #### Dev activity - [ ] My code follows the style guidelines of this project - [ ] I have performed a self-review of my own code - [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas - [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation - [ ] My changes generate no new warnings - [ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works - [ ] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes - [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag #### QA activity: - [ ] [Speedbreak features](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#speedbreakers-) have been covered - [ ] Test plan covers all impacted features and [areas of interest](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#areas-of-interest-) - [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by project stakeholders and other QA members - [ ] Manually tested functionality on DP - [ ] We had an implementation alignment call with stakeholders post QA Round 2 - [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by SDET/manual QA - [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after Cypress tests were reviewed - [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after JUnit tests were reviewed --------- Co-authored-by: Nayan <nayan@appsmith.com> |
||
|
Apeksha Bhosale
|
cf74abcd3f
|
chore: split is required to extend selectors in ee (#29173)
## Description combining currentActions has failed unit test case in EE hence removing and creating new ones for modules #### 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 |
||
|
albinAppsmith
|
228548629b
|
chore: Added context switching for pages pane (#29100) | ||
|
Jacques Ikot
|
be308fab43
|
feat: update template screen UI and building blocks for new users in start from use case flow (#29020)
> Pull Request Template > > Use this template to quickly create a well written pull request. Delete all quotes before creating the pull request. > ## Description Updating the UI for the start from use case flow for new users + adding building blocks to the list of templates offered to new users in this flow. > > 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 > https://www.figma.com/file/kbU9xPv44neCfv1FFo9Ndu/User-Activation?node-id=4293:41450&mode=dev > https://www.notion.so/appsmith/Activation-experiment-2-Start-from-a-template-Offer-building-blocks-in-addition-to-templates-8986dfc3629041559c81b1650b3a5fe5?pvs=4 #### PR fixes following issue(s) Fixes #28605 > 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 - [x] Manual - [ ] JUnit - [ ] Jest - [ ] Cypress > > #### Test Plan > Add Testsmith test cases links that relate to this PR > > #### Issues raised during DP testing > Link issues raised during DP testing for better visiblity and tracking (copy link from comments dropped on this PR) > > > ## Checklist: #### Dev activity - [x] My code follows the style guidelines of this project - [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code - [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas - [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation - [x] My changes generate no new warnings - [ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works - [ ] 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 |
||
|
ashit-rath
|
dea2fd736c
|
chore: action response view refactor (#29031)
## Description Refactor PR for action response view and action execution saga #### PR fixes following issue(s) Refactor PR for https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith-ee/pull/2936 #### Media > A video or a GIF is preferred. when using Loom, don’t embed because it looks like it’s a GIF. instead, just link to the video > > #### Type of change - Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception) ## Testing > #### How Has This Been Tested? > Please describe the tests that you ran to verify your changes. Also list any relevant details for your test configuration. > Delete anything that is not relevant - [ ] 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 --------- Co-authored-by: Rishabh-Rathod <rishabh.rathod@appsmith.com> |
||
|
Pawan Kumar
|
c1884fa25c
|
chore: Integrate Radio Group (#29026)
Fixes #29001 |
||
|
Apeksha Bhosale
|
6e39d11b14
|
chore: split for module instance evaluation on ee (#29027)
## Description Module instance evaluation required split to be extended on EE #### 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 |
||
|
Hetu Nandu
|
b26a954d94
|
chore: Add an extra feature flag to control App sidebar rollout (#28876)
Adds a new feature flag to control the rollout of the App sidebar. It needs to be different as the earlier feature flag was shipped to users already and they may not be on the latest version. fixes: #28877 |
||
|
Rudraprasad Das
|
0200c4eece
|
fix: calling protected branches on sync (#28824)
## Description Fetching updated protected branches when new branch list is synced #### PR fixes following issue(s) Fixes #28826 #### Type of change - Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue) ## Testing #### How Has This Been Tested? > Please describe the tests that you ran to verify your changes. Also list any relevant details for your test configuration. > Delete anything that is not relevant - [ ] 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 |
||
|
Rudraprasad Das
|
2fb73c3260
|
fix: remove feature flag and minor fixes for git branch protection (#28770)
## Description Fixes minor issues and remove feature flag `release_git_branch_protection_enabled` #### PR fixes following issue(s) Fixes #28771 #### Type of change - Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue) ## Testing > #### How Has This Been Tested? > Please describe the tests that you ran to verify your changes. Also list any relevant details for your test configuration. > Delete anything that is not relevant - [x] Manual - [ ] JUnit - [ ] Jest - [ ] Cypress > > #### Test Plan > Add Testsmith test cases links that relate to this PR > > #### Issues raised during DP testing > Link issues raised during DP testing for better visiblity and tracking (copy link from comments dropped on this PR) > > > ## Checklist: #### Dev activity - [ ] 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 |
||
|
albinAppsmith
|
d85fc5fbc1
|
feat: Added Communication popover for new Sidebar (#28688)
## Description Added announcement popover for new sidebar. This will be triggered only if the below conditions satisfy, - if sidebar ff active - AND if new ff to show comm about sidebar - off for new users, on for old users - AND state from the local storage #### PR fixes following issue(s) Fixes https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/28490 #### Media https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/assets/87797149/700689f7-7ebd-478e-8526-1cab2de388b6 #### 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 - [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 |
||
|
Rudraprasad Das
|
cda27eb6f3
|
feat: branch protection (#28526)
## Description - Adds server endpoints for getting and setting protected branches - Adds protected canvas view for branch protection - Adds default branch and protected branch in git modal settings #### PR fixes following issue(s) Fixes #28434, #28056 #### Media Protected View - <img width="1728" alt="image" src="https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/assets/8724051/4fb26450-61e1-4fc0-a66d-0ebaa28ff90c"> Branch Protection Settings - <img width="1728" alt="image" src="https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/assets/8724051/fb6d16b6-0a3c-42fd-be1a-9b3677048663"> #### 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 - [ ] 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: Nayan <nayan@appsmith.com> |
||
|
Hetu Nandu
|
4633b59143
|
[Chore]: App Sidebar Library Pane (#28332)
## Description - This PR will correctly show the Library Pane in the App sidebar. We use the same Library view which we have on the entity explorer for this. - We are also updating the sidebar selected and hover colours - There is also a refactor that tries to decouple the IDE component from the rest of the app. This is useful for the future Side by Side, Modules and Workflows project #### PR fixes following issue(s) Fixes #27959 Fixes #27960 #### Media <img width="777" alt="Screenshot 2023-10-26 at 11 58 47 AM" src="https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/assets/12022471/f78b68b5-9b86-4046-8b1a-828bdc0c513b"> #### Type of change - Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception) ## Testing #### How Has This Been Tested? > Please describe the tests that you ran to verify your changes. Also list any relevant details for your test configuration. > Delete anything that is not relevant - [ ] 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 |
||
|
Rahul Barwal
|
95784c6d10
|
feat: replace blank canvas with starter templates. (#28284)
## Description ### Shows starter page templates instead of blank canvas As part of first activation experiment, this PR implements changes for showing starter page templates and allows user to fork a starter page template when they click on any template. #### PR fixes following issue(s) Fixes #27884 #### Media > A video or a GIF is preferred. when using Loom, don’t embed because it looks like it’s a GIF. instead, just link to the video > > #### Type of change - New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality) ## Testing > #### How Has This Been Tested? > Please describe the tests that you ran to verify your changes. Also list any relevant details for your test configuration. > Delete anything that is not relevant - [x] Manual - [ ] JUnit - [ ] Jest - [ ] Cypress > > #### Test Plan > Add Testsmith test cases links that relate to this PR > > #### Issues raised during DP testing > Link issues raised during DP testing for better visiblity and tracking (copy link from comments dropped on this PR) > > > ## Checklist: #### Dev activity - [x] My code follows the style guidelines of this project - [ ] I have performed a self-review of my own code - [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas - [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation - [x] My changes generate no new warnings - [ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works - [x] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes - [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 --------- Co-authored-by: Jacques Ikot <jacquesikot@gmail.com> |
||
|
Ashok Kumar M
|
492eece3c9
|
fix: widget dimensions for anvil widgets (#28356)
> Pull Request Template > > Use this template to quickly create a well written pull request. Delete all quotes before creating the pull request. > ## Description In this PR we are supplying width and height by computing rows and columns defaults provided for fixed layout. This is temporary, The actual implementation would be that widgets would compute their own dimensions. #### 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 |
||
|
Hetu Nandu
|
c4057c2ea5
|
chore: [App Sidebar] Data Pane (#28248)
## Description Works on the new data pane as part of the App Sidebar. This is currently behind a feature flag. - Shows workspace datasources on the left pane - Updated create new flow by refactoring the existing IntegrationsHomeScreen - Updates context switching for default value selectors - Fixes some settings pane issues #### PR fixes following issue(s) Fixes #27956 Fixes #27952 #### Media https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/assets/12022471/29e36823-4469-418c-ad2a-5362caa93cf4 #### Type of change - Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception) ## Testing #### How Has This Been Tested? No new tests. Existing tests should pass #### Test Plan > Add Testsmith test cases links that relate to this PR > > #### Issues raised during DP testing > Link issues raised during DP testing for better visiblity and tracking (copy link from comments dropped on this PR) > > > ## Checklist: #### Dev activity - [ ] 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 |
||
|
Abhinav Jha
|
651f944b41
|
chore: Send applicationDetail in create application payload (#28272)
## Description - Add the `applicationDetail` payload to the create application request. - This allows instances which have Anvil enabled, to default to Anvil when an application is created. #### PR fixes following issue(s) Fixes #28237 #### Type of change - Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception) #### How Has This Been Tested? - [x] Manual - [ ] JUnit - [ ] Jest - [ ] Cypress - If all existing tests pass, we're good to merge ## 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: nilansh <nilansh@appsmith.com> |
||
|
Favour Ohanekwu
|
bf247a359a
|
feat: Improve error message for typeError (#27795) | ||
|
arunvjn
|
af9e89d2a1
|
chore: remove xml parser v3 as a default library (#28012)
## Description Contains the changes to remove fast-xml-parserV3.17.5 as a default library and migrate all existing apps to install it as a custom JS library on page load. Installations no longer fail when there is a naming collision, we determine a unique accessor that can work inside the application both for UMD & ESM builds. #### PR fixes following issue(s) Fixes https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith-ee/issues/2562 Fixes https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith-ee/issues/2563 Fixes https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith-ee/issues/2073 Fixes https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith-ee/issues/2403 #### Type of change - Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception) > ## Testing > #### How Has This Been Tested? - [x] Manual - [x] JUnit - [x] Jest - [x] Cypress > > #### Test Plan https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/issues/2536 Scenarios for existing apps will be tested post-merge since DP's are created with fresh DB that don't have release data > > #### Issues raised during DP testing https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/28012#issuecomment-1767711382 response: https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/28012#issuecomment-1767781029 > > > ## Checklist: #### Dev activity - [x] My code follows the style guidelines of this project - [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code - [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas - [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation - [x] My changes generate no new warnings - [x] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works - [x] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes - [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag #### QA activity: - [x] [Speedbreak features](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#speedbreakers-) have been covered - [x] Test plan covers all impacted features and [areas of interest](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#areas-of-interest-) - [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by project stakeholders and other QA members - [x] Manually tested functionality on DP - [ ] We had an implementation alignment call with stakeholders post QA Round 2 - [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by SDET/manual QA - [x] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after Cypress tests were reviewed - [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after JUnit tests were reviewed --------- Co-authored-by: manish kumar <manish@appsmith.com> Co-authored-by: Manish Kumar <107841575+sondermanish@users.noreply.github.com> |
||
|
Abhinav Jha
|
4fa35210a8
|
chore: Update DSL for Anvil (#27966)
## Description - If the Anvil feature flag is enabled, set the layout system type to "ANVIL" when creating an application - Refactor DSL transformers to pull the specific transformer based on the layout system type - Refactor code to move layout system specific transformers to the specific layout system type folders - Add new entry in the list of feature flags for Anvil Note: No changes are observed visually in the application, as we're defaulting to the Fixed layout system's widget flow until integrations for Anvil are complete. #### PR fixes following issue(s) Fixes #27007 Fixes #26971 #### Media #### Type of change - 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? - [ ] Manual - [ ] JUnit - NA - [ ] Jest - PENDING - [ ] Cypress - NA #### 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: - [ ] [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 |
||
|
ashit-rath
|
d48ac4fd81
|
chore: action editors refactor (#27972)
## Description The aim of this PR is to make the editors reusable in the Module editor. Changes 1. A wrapper is introduced for API, Query and Curl editors which passes differentiating functions and make the form editors agnostic of pageId and applicationId 2. In order to pass down function, react contexts are added to avoid prop drilling #### PR fixes following issue(s) Fixes #26160 #### Media > A video or a GIF is preferred. when using Loom, don’t embed because it looks like it’s a GIF. instead, just link to the video > > #### Type of change - Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception) ## Testing > #### How Has This Been Tested? > Please describe the tests that you ran to verify your changes. Also list any relevant details for your test configuration. > Delete anything that is not relevant - [ ] Manual - [ ] JUnit - [ ] Jest - [ ] Cypress > > #### Test Plan > Add Testsmith test cases links that relate to this PR > > #### Issues raised during DP testing > Link issues raised during DP testing for better visiblity and tracking (copy link from comments dropped on this PR) > > > ## Checklist: #### Dev activity - [x] My code follows the style guidelines of this project - [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code - [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas - [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation - [x] My changes generate no new warnings - [x] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works - [x] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes - [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag #### QA activity: - [ ] [Speedbreak features](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#speedbreakers-) have been covered - [ ] Test plan covers all impacted features and [areas of interest](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#areas-of-interest-) - [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by project stakeholders and other QA members - [ ] Manually tested functionality on DP - [ ] We had an implementation alignment call with stakeholders post QA Round 2 - [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by SDET/manual QA - [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after Cypress tests were reviewed - [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after JUnit tests were reviewed |
||
|
Apeksha Bhosale
|
575d7fcc36
|
chore: fixed typescript errors which are thrown in EE because of split (#28009)
## Description few type errors which are being thrown in ee because of the split is fixed in this PR #### Type of change - Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception) > > > ## Testing > #### How Has This Been Tested? > Please describe the tests that you ran to verify your changes. Also list any relevant details for your test configuration. > Delete anything that is not relevant - [ ] 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 |
||
|
Favour Ohanekwu
|
3d1640e0ae
|
chore: Refactor debugger analytics for active fields (#28036)
## Description This PR fires debugger analytics for active fields only after the editor onblur event is triggered. #### PR fixes following issue(s) Fixes #27679 > 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 |
||
|
ashit-rath
|
59d0f999ad
|
chore: route builder refactor (#27905)
## Description This PR aims to achieve 2 things 1. Make route building independent of explicitly passing `pageId` as param when the route is generated against the current page navigation. 2. Add extensible points to extend basePath generation in EE. THIS PR DOES NOT CHANGE ROUTE GENERATION. Changes: In `app/client/src/ce/entities/URLRedirect/URLAssembly.ts` 1. Moves the logic of `generateBasePath` way to specific method called `generateBasePathForApps` and the generateBasePath is available to extend and switch between a different base path generation logic in EE. 2. Adds a new member variable called `currentPageId`. This `currentPageId` would help generating basePath without explicitly passing `pageId` to the build method. If a `pageId` is passed it would be overridden in the `resolveEntityId` logic. 3. Added `resolveEntityId` method to resolve the entity (pageId) based on the params passed and the `currentPageId`. This method also acts as an extension point for extending the logic to any other resolution logic similar to `generateBasePath` In `app/client/src/pages/AppViewer/index.tsx` and `app/client/src/pages/Editor/index.tsx` The `currentPageId` is set using the `urlBuilder.setCurrentPageId` when the component mounts or page changes and unset when the component unmounts. #### PR fixes following issue(s) Fixes #27840 #### Media > A video or a GIF is preferred. when using Loom, don’t embed because it looks like it’s a GIF. instead, just link to the video > > #### Type of change - Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception) ## Testing > #### How Has This Been Tested? > Please describe the tests that you ran to verify your changes. Also list any relevant details for your test configuration. > Delete anything that is not relevant - [x] Manual - [ ] JUnit - [x] Jest - [ ] Cypress > > #### Test Plan > Add Testsmith test cases links that relate to this PR > > #### Issues raised during DP testing > Link issues raised during DP testing for better visiblity and tracking (copy link from comments dropped on this PR) > > > ## Checklist: #### Dev activity - [x] My code follows the style guidelines of this project - [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code - [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas - [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation - [x] My changes generate no new warnings - [x] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works - [x] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes - [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag #### QA activity: - [ ] [Speedbreak features](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#speedbreakers-) have been covered - [ ] Test plan covers all impacted features and [areas of interest](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#areas-of-interest-) - [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by project stakeholders and other QA members - [ ] Manually tested functionality on DP - [ ] We had an implementation alignment call with stakeholders post QA Round 2 - [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by SDET/manual QA - [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after Cypress tests were reviewed - [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after JUnit tests were reviewed |
||
|
Dipyaman Biswas
|
be7f6674f7
|
feat: make features call a blocking API call for page load (#27974)
## Description Make features call a blocking API call for page load #### PR fixes following issue(s) Fixes #27973 #### Media #### Type of change > Please delete options that are not relevant. - Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception) ## Testing > #### How Has This Been Tested? > Please describe the tests that you ran to verify your changes. Also list any relevant details for your test configuration. > Delete anything that is not relevant - [x] Manual - [ ] 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 |
||
|
Hetu Nandu
|
985fe3e722
|
chore: Add App sidebar feature flag (#27939)
Adds the feature flag for app sidebar feature Fixes #27937 |
||
|
Valera Melnikov
|
9eac55a380
|
chore: add consistent-type-definitions rule (#27907)
## Description Add consistent-type-definitions rule |
||
|
Valera Melnikov
|
f5a0e41f60
|
chore: update eslint and dependencies then fix revealed errors (#27908)
## Description Update eslint and dependencies then fix revealed errors |
||
|
Apeksha Bhosale
|
0f393a2423
|
chore: separated tree type into common file to be extended on EE (#27812)
## Description UnEvalTree, dataTree and configTree's entities needs to be extended on EE to accommodate module inputs and different types of modules hence the separation. I have added few more sanity checks in the existing code which were throwing errors/warning on EE. #### PR fixes following issue(s) Fixes # (issue number) #### Media > A video or a GIF is preferred. when using Loom, don’t embed because it looks like it’s a GIF. instead, just link to the video > > #### Type of change - Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception) > > > ## Testing > #### How Has This Been Tested? > Please describe the tests that you ran to verify your changes. Also list any relevant details for your test configuration. > Delete anything that is not relevant - [ ] 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 |
||
|
rahulramesha
|
8a35e05923
|
chore: code changes for widget position observer and widget name on canvas (#27367)
## Description The PR contains non integrated code changes for below new features, The changes are not integrated to work but only contains the ground work code changes that can be added to css based layout/ Anvil once that is available in Release. - **Widget Position observer-** Since we are moving to css based layout, the positions of widgets will be unknown. To solve the issue we have introduced the above feature that stores/updates position of widgets on Redux state whenever a widget position updates. without manually triggering any action - **Widget Name on Canvas-** For the New Layout the existing widget name is inconsistent as it would cut off or visually not visible. to solve that the widget name will now be drawn on html canvas than it being a dom node component #### PR fixes following issue(s) Fixes #26945 Fixes #26948 #### Type of change - Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception) ## Testing #### How Has This Been Tested? - [ ] Manual - [ ] JUnit - [ ] Jest #### 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: Ashok Kumar M <35134347+marks0351@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: Abhinav Jha <abhinav@appsmith.com> |
||
|
Ashok Kumar M
|
703048b7b5
|
chore: Layout system wise restructuring of Canvas Widget (#27496)
> Pull Request Template > > Use this template to quickly create a well written pull request. Delete all quotes before creating the pull request. > ## Description In This PR, we are cleaning up Canvas Widget implementation and taking measures to remove it from the widget suite. more detailed explanation of Why and How of the solution [here](https://www.notion.so/Canvas-Widget-73776a3364ba42eb8f783c79046777d0) In this solution we are going to remove implementation of Editing and Layouting Specific implementation from Canvas Widget and create a new view component which is Layout system specific. #### PR fixes following issue(s) Fixes #27003 #### Media > A video or a GIF is preferred. when using Loom, don’t embed because it looks like it’s a GIF. instead, just link to the video > > #### Type of change > Please delete options that are not relevant. - Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception) > > > ## Testing > #### How Has This Been Tested? > Please describe the tests that you ran to verify your changes. Also list any relevant details for your test configuration. > Delete anything that is not relevant - [ ] Manual - [ ] JUnit - [X] Jest - [ ] Cypress > > #### Test Plan > Add Testsmith test cases links that relate to this PR > > #### Issues raised during DP testing > Link issues raised during DP testing for better visiblity and tracking (copy link from comments dropped on this PR) > > > ## Checklist: #### Dev activity - [ ] 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 |
||
|
Nilansh Bansal
|
9be87c2cc2
|
feat: added anvil type for app layout (#27633)
## Description This PR adds a new type ANVIL in the acceptable app layout types. In this PR, BE changes: - Anvil type is added to appPositioiningType enum. FE changes: - rename appPositioningType to layoutSystemType internally in all places except the reducer and application payload. - move certain layout system specific files into layout system folder #### PR fixes following issue(s) Fixes #26973 #### Type of change - New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality) ## Testing > #### How Has This Been Tested? > Please describe the tests that you ran to verify your changes. Also list any relevant details for your test configuration. > Delete anything that is not relevant - [x] Manual - [ ] JUnit - [ ] Jest - [ ] Cypress > > #### Test Plan > Add Testsmith test cases links that relate to this PR > > #### Issues raised during DP testing > Link issues raised during DP testing for better visiblity and tracking (copy link from comments dropped on this PR) > > > ## Checklist: #### Dev activity - [x] My code follows the style guidelines of this project - [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code - [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas - [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation - [x] My changes generate no new warnings - [ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works - [x] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes - [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 --------- Co-authored-by: Ashok Kumar M <35134347+marks0351@users.noreply.github.com> |
||
|
Preet Sidhu
|
46dcf3a8f0
|
chore: Create layout system structure for Anvil and AnvilFlexComponent. (#27178)
## Description
1. Add new ```appPositioningType``` : ANVIL.
2. Create new code path and folder structure for Anvil layout system.
3. Move common pieces of functionalities between autoLayout and anvil to
anvil folder structure (e.g. ```CanvasResizer```).
4. Create ```AnvilFlexComponent```.
5. Use WDS Flex component in AnvilFlexComponent.
6. Pass min max size props in a data structure that is supported by
container queries in the Flex component.
e.g. min-width: { base: "120px", "480px": "200px" }
7. Supply the following flex properties (flex-grow flex-shrink
flex-basis) to widgets depending on their ```responsiveBehvaiour```:
a) Fill: ```flex: 1 1 0%;```
b) Hug: ```flex: 0 0 auto;```
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes # (issue number)
1. [#26987](https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/26987)
2. [#26609](https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/26609)
3. [#26611](https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/26611)
#### Type of change
- New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
## Testing
>
#### How Has This Been Tested?
> Please describe the tests that you ran to verify your changes. Also
list any relevant details for your test configuration.
> Delete anything that is not relevant
- [x] Manual
- [ ] JUnit
- [x] 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
- [ ] 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
- [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
---------
Co-authored-by: Ashok Kumar M <35134347+marks0351@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Aswath K <aswath.sana@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: rahulramesha <rahul@appsmith.com>
Co-authored-by: rahulramesha <71900764+rahulramesha@users.noreply.github.com>
|
||
|
Apeksha Bhosale
|
4dc6df0013
|
chore: query module evaluation (#27660)
> Pull Request Template > > Use this template to quickly create a well written pull request. Delete all quotes before creating the pull request. > ## Description There are multiple refactors and split for query module's creator flow changes which involves module input -- it's a new entity introduced as part of modules project #### PR fixes following issue(s) Fixes # (issue number) Part of https://app.zenhub.com/workspaces/modules-pod-63e0d668a7fea03850c89c6f/issues/gh/appsmithorg/appsmith/27352 #### Type of change - Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception) > > ## Testing > #### How Has This Been Tested? > Please describe the tests that you ran to verify your changes. Also list any relevant details for your test configuration. > Delete anything that is not relevant - [ ] 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 |
||
|
Rudraprasad Das
|
21643ab952
|
fix: adding offline error for git failure (#27597)
## Description Error message were ignored when offline. Fixed it! #### PR fixes following issue(s) Fixes #27589 #### Media  #### Type of change - Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue) ## Testing > #### How Has This Been Tested? > Please describe the tests that you ran to verify your changes. Also list any relevant details for your test configuration. > Delete anything that is not relevant - [x] Manual - [ ] JUnit - [ ] Jest - [ ] Cypress > > #### Test Plan > Add Testsmith test cases links that relate to this PR > > #### Issues raised during DP testing > Link issues raised during DP testing for better visiblity and tracking (copy link from comments dropped on this PR) > > > ## Checklist: #### Dev activity - [ ] My code follows the style guidelines of this project - [ ] I have performed a self-review of my own code - [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas - [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation - [ ] My changes generate no new warnings - [ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works - [ ] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes - [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag #### QA activity: - [ ] [Speedbreak features](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#speedbreakers-) have been covered - [ ] Test plan covers all impacted features and [areas of interest](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#areas-of-interest-) - [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by project stakeholders and other QA members - [ ] Manually tested functionality on DP - [ ] We had an implementation alignment call with stakeholders post QA Round 2 - [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by SDET/manual QA - [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after Cypress tests were reviewed - [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after JUnit tests were reviewed |
||
|
Ankita Kinger
|
dd347c051f
|
chore: Splitting uiReducers to support modules on EE (#27580)
## Description Splitting uiReducers to support modules on EE #### PR fixes following issue(s) Fixes [#27581](https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/27581) #### Type of change - Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception) ## Testing #### How Has This Been Tested? - [x] Manual - [ ] JUnit - [ ] Jest - [x] Cypress ## Checklist: #### Dev activity - [x] My code follows the style guidelines of this project - [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code - [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas - [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation - [x] My changes generate no new warnings - [ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works - [x] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes - [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag #### QA activity: - [ ] [Speedbreak features](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#speedbreakers-) have been covered - [ ] Test plan covers all impacted features and [areas of interest](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#areas-of-interest-) - [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by project stakeholders and other QA members - [ ] Manually tested functionality on DP - [ ] We had an implementation alignment call with stakeholders post QA Round 2 - [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by SDET/manual QA - [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after Cypress tests were reviewed - [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after JUnit tests were reviewed |
||
|
Ankita Kinger
|
1012c43ee7
|
chore: Splitting entities reducer for supporting more reducers on EE (#27560)
## Description Splitting entities reducer for supporting more reducers on EE #### PR fixes following issue(s) Fixes [#27559](https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/27559) #### Type of change - Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception) ## Testing #### How Has This Been Tested? - [x] Manual - [ ] JUnit - [ ] Jest - [x] Cypress ## Checklist: #### Dev activity - [x] My code follows the style guidelines of this project - [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code - [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas - [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation - [x] My changes generate no new warnings - [ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works - [x] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes - [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag #### QA activity: - [ ] [Speedbreak features](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#speedbreakers-) have been covered - [ ] Test plan covers all impacted features and [areas of interest](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#areas-of-interest-) - [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by project stakeholders and other QA members - [ ] Manually tested functionality on DP - [ ] We had an implementation alignment call with stakeholders post QA Round 2 - [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by SDET/manual QA - [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after Cypress tests were reviewed - [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after JUnit tests were reviewed |
||
|
Aswath K
|
3170af84c9
|
chore: Remove position props from List and Table widgets (#27018)
- Replaced the property `templateBottomRow` with `templateHeight` as a first step to remove the dependency of fixed layout specific position property from List widget. - Remove appPositioningType and isMobile props from widget DataTree. - Include width and height as `componentHeight` and `componentWidth` in widget DataTree. - Update ListWidget, ListWidgetV2, TableWidget and TableWidgetV2 to use the componentHeight prop in derivedProps calculation to get pageSize. |
||
|
Favour Ohanekwu
|
23ba0921c7
|
feat: Update isLoading peoperty of widgets after API/Query execution (#27406)
## Description In this PR, we ensure that after API execution, data is available in the dataTree before setting widget isLoading to false. #### PR fixes following issue(s) Fixes #26935 #### 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 |
||
|
srix
|
d34edec1f4
|
feat: assistive binding (#27070)
> Pull Request Template ## Description An assistive Binding feature is added. A new code editor hinter menu will pop up once three characters is pressed, and they match with any entities. This assistance is expected to help many new app builders discover binding features. PRD: [Widget binding & success](https://www.notion.so/appsmith/Widget-binding-success-bc2f559b67194891992c6163eb8ac457) UI Design : [Zeplin](https://app.zeplin.io/project/64df0f50e3f9570e8dcfc803/screen/64df0fa0e771af22508f2267) POC: [POC for Binding Success - Engineering](https://www.notion.so/appsmith/POC-for-Binding-Success-Engineering-07157e8e90c7451a850d6d054d975f36) ERD : [Engineering Requirement - Assistive Binding](https://www.notion.so/appsmith/Engineering-Requirement-Assistive-Binding-b04e41f07e3b4c998be7b8b49f8324ba) #### PR fixes following issue(s) Fixes # (issue number) When a users input within a property of a widget matches any query/api/jsobject of their application, a dropdown menu will appear with possible binding options for users to select from. #26682 When the user adds a new binding from the menu the cursor should be present in between the moustache bindings #26683 When a user toggles JS mode for the input, bindings with the cursor in between them should be present by default (incase input has no value) #26685 #### Media #### Type of change > Please delete options that are not relevant. - New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality) ## Testing > #### How Has This Been Tested? > Please describe the tests that you ran to verify your changes. Also list any relevant details for your test configuration. > Delete anything that is not relevant - [x] Manual - [x] Cypress > > #### Test Plan https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/issues/2507 #### Issues raised during DP testing > Link issues raised during DP testing for better visiblity and tracking (copy link from comments dropped on this PR) - [x] https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/27070#issuecomment-1710094372 - [x] https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/27070#issuecomment-1711189712 - [x] https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/27070#issuecomment-1711209028 - [x] https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/27070#issuecomment-1711214677 - [x] https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/27070#issuecomment-1711311082 - [x] https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/27070#issuecomment-1711321208 - [x] https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/27070#issuecomment-1711336112 ## 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 - [x] Test plan covers all impacted features and [areas of interest](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#areas-of-interest-) - [x] Test plan has been peer reviewed by project stakeholders and other QA members - [x] Manually tested functionality on DP - [x] We had an implementation alignment call with stakeholders post QA Round 2 - [x] 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 --------- Co-authored-by: arunvjn <arun@appsmith.com> Co-authored-by: Favour Ohans <fohanekwu@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: Aishwarya UR <aishwarya@appsmith.com> |
||
|
Apeksha Bhosale
|
01c90f1df1
|
changes in evaluation for EE - split (#27144)
## Description Evaluation split changes for EE. 1. RequiresLinting function has moved to common place - on EE extra checks will be added 2. DataTreeFactory - getActionsForCurrentPage changed to getCurrentActions -- which will be modified on EE to acomodate package actions 3. same as above for getJSCollectionsForCurrentPage --> changed to getCurrentJSCollections #### PR fixes following issue(s) Fixes # (issue number) > if no issue exists, please create an issue and ask the maintainers about this first > > > #### Type of change - Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception) > > > ## Testing > #### How Has This Been Tested? > Please describe the tests that you ran to verify your changes. Also list any relevant details for your test configuration. > Delete anything that is not relevant - [ ] 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 |
||
|
ChandanBalajiBP
|
0e56e66275
|
chore: ME design audit CE (#26535)
## Description https://www.notion.so/appsmith/Multiple-Environments-Design-Audit-f230b300039549fcb2bb784b05ff0c1c #### PR fixes following issue(s) Fixes #1969 #### Type of change > Please delete options that are not relevant. - Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue) ## Testing > #### How Has This Been Tested? > Please describe the tests that you ran to verify your changes. Also list any relevant details for your test configuration. > Delete anything that is not relevant - [x] Manual - [ ] Jest - [ ] Cypress > > #### Test Plan Tested these issues: [Spacing between headers](https://www.notion.so/appsmith/Multiple-Environments-Design-Audit-f230b300039549fcb2bb784b05ff0c1c?p=4c4e381f307848f5a41036bd21251ff7&pm=s) [Self signed certificate should be part of Oauth 2](https://www.notion.so/appsmith/Multiple-Environments-Design-Audit-f230b300039549fcb2bb784b05ff0c1c?p=5b79d2eb17164e7ab13ee13e9128ac55&pm=s) [Wrong CTA for API datasources](https://www.notion.so/appsmith/Multiple-Environments-Design-Audit-f230b300039549fcb2bb784b05ff0c1c?p=2962f718df7f4cc4a11515b4bee64b89&pm=s) [The info banner on git modal](https://www.notion.so/appsmith/Multiple-Environments-Design-Audit-f230b300039549fcb2bb784b05ff0c1c?p=659b03d6f7644150921385cc001d9c09&pm=s) [Code split issues](https://theappsmith.slack.com/archives/CPG2ZTXEY/p1692867977713909) > > #### Issues raised during DP testing https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith-ee/pull/1970#issuecomment-1698646837 > > > ## 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 - [x] 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 - [x] Manually tested functionality on DP - [ ] We had an implementation alignment call with stakeholders post QA Round 2 - [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by SDET/manual QA - [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after Cypress tests were reviewed - [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after JUnit tests were reviewed |
||
|
Ashok Kumar M
|
0cbec4283c
|
chore: BaseWidget Restructuring (#26562)
## Description Create a Basewidget wrapper that supplies Widget Onion as per the layout system. involves extracting widget layers presently in the BaseWidget into HOCs and hooks and make sure layout systems can be scaled. Make sure Modal widget is handled as a overlay widget whose wrappers are supplied by basewidget instead of modal widget implementing its own editing blocks. This PR also separates the drag n drop logic for both auto layout and fixed layout. They are moved into respective Layout system folders to have clear sepsration of concern #### PR fixes following issue(s) Fixes #26674 Fixes #26675 Fixes #26676 Fixes #26570 Fixes #26590 Fixes #26591 Fixes #26592 <img width="931" alt="BaseWidgetHOC" src="https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/assets/35134347/22f4cf1e-e4c5-4475-83a8-6818e7cebe70"> [Miro Link to view the new system](https://miro.com/app/board/uXjVM6vRgf8=/?moveToWidget=3458764560239189204&cot=14) > 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. - 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) > > > ## Testing > #### How Has This Been Tested? > Please describe the tests that you ran to verify your changes. Also list any relevant details for your test configuration. > Delete anything that is not relevant - [x] Manual - [ ] JUnit - [ ] Jest - [ ] Cypress > > #### Test Plan > Add Testsmith test cases links that relate to this PR > > #### Issues raised during DP testing > Link issues raised during DP testing for better visiblity and tracking (copy link from comments dropped on this PR) > > > ## Checklist: #### Dev activity - [ ] 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: rahulramesha <rahul@appsmith.com> Co-authored-by: rahulramesha <71900764+rahulramesha@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: Preet Sidhu <preetsidhu.bits@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: Aswath K <aswath.sana@gmail.com> |
||
|
Rudraprasad Das
|
68a439345d
|
feat: git connect v2 (#26725)
## Description UX improvements for Git Connect Flow https://zpl.io/W4AQoek #### PR fixes following issue(s) Fixes #25588 #### Media > A video or a GIF is preferred. when using Loom, don’t embed because it looks like it’s a GIF. instead, just link to the video > > #### Type of change - New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality) - This change requires a documentation update > > > ## Testing > #### How Has This Been Tested? > 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 https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/26725#issuecomment-1709723205 https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/26725#issuecomment-1711136694 > > > ## 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 |
||
|
balajisoundar
|
2608e3dbd3
|
chore: Move the widget config to widget class (#26073)
## Description - Remove the config objects from widget and config maps from the widget factory. - Introduce methods in widget development API to dynamically fetch this items. - freeze the widget configuration. #### PR fixes following issue(s) Fixes https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/26008 > 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 - [x] 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 - [x] 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 - [x] Manually tested functionality on DP - [ ] We had an implementation alignment call with stakeholders post QA Round 2 - [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by SDET/manual QA - [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after Cypress tests were reviewed - [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after JUnit tests were reviewed |
||
|
Druthi Polisetty
|
b72327c549
|
feat: Showing suggested prompts in the Ai window based on the entities available in the app (#26670)
## Description feat: Showing suggested prompts in the Ai window based on the entities available in the app ## This PR fixes issues Fixes #26691 #### 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 - [ ] 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: Diljit VJ <diljit@appsmith.com> |
||
|
Rajat Agrawal
|
53750abe0f
|
feat: ECharts Phase 2 - Custom ECharts (#25980)
Fixes #24424 Fixes #26009 Fixes #25564 Fixes #26545 Fixes #26584 |
||
|
akash-codemonk
|
78ca912fb9
|
feat: improve signposting discoverability (#26551) | ||
|
Ankita Kinger
|
ce9c32cb92
|
chore: Improve code splitting of FE components (#26659)
## Description Improve code splitting of FE components to avoid minimal changes needed on EE when CE is modified. #### PR fixes following issue(s) Fixes [#24184](https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/24184) #### Type of change - Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception) ## Testing #### How Has This Been Tested? - [x] Manual - [ ] JUnit - [x] Jest - [x] Cypress ## Checklist: #### Dev activity - [x] My code follows the style guidelines of this project - [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code - [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas - [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation - [x] My changes generate no new warnings - [ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works - [x] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes - [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag #### QA activity: - [ ] [Speedbreak features](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#speedbreakers-) have been covered - [ ] Test plan covers all impacted features and [areas of interest](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#areas-of-interest-) - [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by project stakeholders and other QA members - [ ] Manually tested functionality on DP - [ ] We had an implementation alignment call with stakeholders post QA Round 2 - [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by SDET/manual QA - [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after Cypress tests were reviewed - [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after JUnit tests were reviewed |
||
|
Rudraprasad Das
|
d85d227c45
|
feat: simultaneous git status and remote compare api calls (#26397)
## Description Segregating api calls for status and remote #### PR fixes following issue(s) Fixes #26038 #### Media > A video or a GIF is preferred. when using Loom, don’t embed because it looks like it’s a GIF. instead, just link to the video > > #### Type of change - New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality) > > ## Testing > #### How Has This Been Tested? > Please describe the tests that you ran to verify your changes. Also list any relevant details for your test configuration. > Delete anything that is not relevant - [ ] 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 |