## Description
Current evaluation architecture has 2 natures of evaluation
- sync evaluation ( evaluation for data fields )
- async evaluation ( evaluation for trigger events )
For every evaluation, this nature needs to be set according to the field
being evaluated.
It was noticed that for async code evaluation where a code block
executes only after the resolution of promise, for example,
`fetch().then((res) => { showAlert("fetched") });`
Here, the `showAlert` only executes when the fetch is completed and
before that, it could be possible that we have switched to sync
evaluation in the worker. This would lead to a `showAlert` throwing
error.
Hence, we resolve this issue by making `async evaluation` as the default
nature of evaluation.
Fixes https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/19733
## Type of change
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Manual
1. Validated Supabse app to check the error and JSPDF
2. Validated sync data field with sync function and framework function -
verify that error for async function is displayed properly
3. Validated older apps(Automation app/Silly string) to verify the Async
error is not displayed
4. .then and catch block in async function -
- Jest
- Cypress
### Test Plan
### Issues raised during DP testing
---------
Co-authored-by: Aishwarya UR <aishwarya@appsmith.com>
## Description
To determine if a JSObject function is sync or async, we run a
`functionDeterminer.isFunctionAsync` check that actually runs the raw
user function, this way we find out if a trigger was present or not.
When running the raw user function internally, we should disable console
logs to make sure users don't see those logs.
TL;DR:- Changes in this PR disable the console log for the internal run
of JSObject functions.
Fixes https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/19533
## Type of change
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
## How Has This Been Tested?
- 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
- [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
- [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:
- [ ] Test plan has been approved by relevant developers
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by QA
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by either SDET or
manual QA
- [ ] Organized project review call with relevant stakeholders after
Round 1/2 of QA
- [ ] Added Test Plan Approved label after reveiwing all Cypress test
## Description
- Added logic to replace async function undefined error with
"{{actionName}} cannot be used in this field".
- This change improves performance for
- ParseJSActions
- Triggers execution
- Each Appsmith framework action execution.
- This change adds all platform functions to evalContext permanently.
Fixes#12179Fixes#13273
Internal discussion for error message :-
https://theappsmith.slack.com/archives/C02K0SZQ7V3/p1667457021297869?thread_ts=1667385039.225229&cid=C02K0SZQ7V3
## Type of change
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
- Performance improvement
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Manual
- Jest
- Cypress
### Test Plan
- [ ] https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/issues/2086
### Issues raised during DP testing
> Link issues raised during DP testing for better visiblity and tracking
(copy link from comments dropped on this PR)
## Checklist:
### Dev activity
- [ ] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [ ] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [ ] My changes generate no new warnings
- [ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [ ] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag
### QA activity:
- [ ] Test plan has been approved by relevant developers
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by QA
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by either SDET or
manual QA
- [ ] Organized project review call with relevant stakeholders after
Round 1/2 of QA
- [ ] Added Test Plan Approved label after reveiwing all Cypress test
Co-authored-by: Aishwarya UR <aishwarya@appsmith.com>
