## Description
We are decoupling formControl registry code from the main chunk and
lazily loading as close as possible to the relevant React component.
This was earlier being tied to the root unnecessarily.
Fixes #`Issue Number`
_or_
Fixes `Issue URL`
> [!WARNING]
> _If no issue exists, please create an issue first, and check with the
maintainers if the issue is valid._
## Automation
/ok-to-test tags="@tag.All"
### 🔍 Cypress test results
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment: Cypress test results -->
> [!TIP]
> 🟢🟢🟢 All cypress tests have passed! 🎉🎉🎉
> Workflow run:
<https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/actions/runs/15701692090>
> Commit: cbd1a7fb92a99e09bc4ac3e282c512a1553bcf38
> <a
href="https://internal.appsmith.com/app/cypress-dashboard/rundetails-65890b3c81d7400d08fa9ee5?branch=master&workflowId=15701692090&attempt=1"
target="_blank">Cypress dashboard</a>.
> Tags: `@tag.All`
> Spec:
> <hr>Tue, 17 Jun 2025 09:15:40 UTC
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: Cypress test results -->
## Communication
Should the DevRel and Marketing teams inform users about this change?
- [ ] Yes
- [ ] No
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai
-->
## Summary by CodeRabbit
## Summary by CodeRabbit
- **New Features**
- Improved form control loading with dynamic registration, ensuring
controls are only rendered after they are fully loaded.
- **Bug Fixes**
- Prevented form controls from rendering before registration is
complete, reducing potential display issues.
- **Refactor**
- Enhanced flexibility for certain form rendering functions to allow
them to return nothing when appropriate.
- Centralized and formalized widget-related type definitions for
improved consistency and maintainability.
- Streamlined import paths for widget-related types across multiple
components and sagas.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
## Description
We decoupled the widget-config.json file (177KB when zipped) from the
main bundle and implemented lazy loading during DSL migrations. This
optimisation reduces the size of the main chunk by 10%, which should
lead to better performance, specifically improving FCP and LCP, as the
main chunk's fetch and evaluation times are reduced
Fixes #`Issue Number`
_or_
Fixes `Issue URL`
> [!WARNING]
> _If no issue exists, please create an issue first, and check with the
maintainers if the issue is valid._
## Automation
/ok-to-test tags="@tag.All"
### 🔍 Cypress test results
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment: Cypress test results -->
> [!TIP]
> 🟢🟢🟢 All cypress tests have passed! 🎉🎉🎉
> Workflow run:
<https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/actions/runs/11384816747>
> Commit: ae14b3f40c4c1ef77250157e56aed97acae5cbaf
> <a
href="https://internal.appsmith.com/app/cypress-dashboard/rundetails-65890b3c81d7400d08fa9ee5?branch=master&workflowId=11384816747&attempt=2"
target="_blank">Cypress dashboard</a>.
> Tags: `@tag.All`
> Spec:
> <hr>Thu, 17 Oct 2024 15:04:34 UTC
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: Cypress test results -->
## Communication
Should the DevRel and Marketing teams inform users about this change?
- [ ] Yes
- [ ] No
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai
-->
## Summary by CodeRabbit
## Summary by CodeRabbit
- **New Features**
- Enhanced migration logic for DSL widgets with asynchronous operations.
- Improved performance with lazy loading of widget configurations.
- Added optional properties to page response data structures.
- **Bug Fixes**
- Resolved issues with dynamic binding path migrations.
- **Tests**
- Updated test cases to handle asynchronous operations for better
reliability and accuracy.
- **Chores**
- Improved type safety and error handling in widget factory utilities
and mock functions.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
## 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
## Description
This PR upgrades Prettier to v2 + enforces TypeScript’s [`import
type`](https://www.typescriptlang.org/docs/handbook/release-notes/typescript-3-8.html#type-only-imports-and-export)
syntax where applicable. It’s submitted as a separate PR so we can merge
it easily.
As a part of this PR, we reformat the codebase heavily:
- add `import type` everywhere where it’s required, and
- re-format the code to account for Prettier 2’s breaking changes:
https://prettier.io/blog/2020/03/21/2.0.0.html#breaking-changes
This PR is submitted against `release` to make sure all new code by team
members will adhere to new formatting standards, and we’ll have fewer
conflicts when merging `bundle-optimizations` into `release`. (I’ll
merge `release` back into `bundle-optimizations` once this PR is
merged.)
### Why is this needed?
This PR is needed because, for the Lodash optimization from
7cbb12af88,
we need to use `import type`. Otherwise, `babel-plugin-lodash` complains
that `LoDashStatic` is not a lodash function.
However, just using `import type` in the current codebase will give you
this:
<img width="962" alt="Screenshot 2023-03-08 at 17 45 59"
src="https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/2953267/223775744-407afa0c-e8b9-44a1-90f9-b879348da57f.png">
That’s because Prettier 1 can’t parse `import type` at all. To parse it,
we need to upgrade to Prettier 2.
### Why enforce `import type`?
Apart from just enabling `import type` support, this PR enforces
specifying `import type` everywhere it’s needed. (Developers will get
immediate TypeScript and ESLint errors when they forget to do so.)
I’m doing this because I believe `import type` improves DX and makes
refactorings easier.
Let’s say you had a few imports like below. Can you tell which of these
imports will increase the bundle size? (Tip: it’s not all of them!)
```ts
// app/client/src/workers/Linting/utils.ts
import { Position } from "codemirror";
import { LintError as JSHintError, LintOptions } from "jshint";
import { get, isEmpty, isNumber, keys, last, set } from "lodash";
```
It’s pretty hard, right?
What about now?
```ts
// app/client/src/workers/Linting/utils.ts
import type { Position } from "codemirror";
import type { LintError as JSHintError, LintOptions } from "jshint";
import { get, isEmpty, isNumber, keys, last, set } from "lodash";
```
Now, it’s clear that only `lodash` will be bundled.
This helps developers to see which imports are problematic, but it
_also_ helps with refactorings. Now, if you want to see where
`codemirror` is bundled, you can just grep for `import \{.*\} from
"codemirror"` – and you won’t get any type-only imports.
This also helps (some) bundlers. Upon transpiling, TypeScript erases
type-only imports completely. In some environment (not ours), this makes
the bundle smaller, as the bundler doesn’t need to bundle type-only
imports anymore.
## Type of change
- Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception)
## How Has This Been Tested?
This was tested to not break the build.
### Test Plan
> Add Testsmith test cases links that relate to this PR
### Issues raised during DP testing
> Link issues raised during DP testing for better visiblity and tracking
(copy link from comments dropped on this PR)
## Checklist:
### Dev activity
- [x] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [ ] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] My changes generate no new warnings
- [ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [ ] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag
### QA activity:
- [ ] Test plan has been approved by relevant developers
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by QA
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by either SDET or
manual QA
- [ ] Organized project review call with relevant stakeholders after
Round 1/2 of QA
- [ ] Added Test Plan Approved label after reveiwing all Cypress test
---------
Co-authored-by: Satish Gandham <hello@satishgandham.com>
Co-authored-by: Satish Gandham <satish.iitg@gmail.com>
* Implemented code splitting of some files for SAML integration
* Implemented code splitting of some more files for SAML integration
* updated redirect url component
* fixed an import statement
* fixed a unit test
* updated restart banner tooltip logic
* updated an import statement
