## Description
Temporary arrangement to consume different base image for `pg` vs
`release`, until we upgrade Postgres to v15 on release.
## Automation
/ok-to-test tags="@tag.Sanity"
### 🔍 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/9479342636>
> Commit: 69d29d1657d606d78c5f85aa130cf773eb693d27
> Cypress dashboard url: <a
href="https://internal.appsmith.com/app/cypress-dashboard/rundetails-65890b3c81d7400d08fa9ee5?branch=master&workflowId=9479342636&attempt=1"
target="_blank">Click here!</a>
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: Cypress test results -->
## Communication
Should the DevRel and Marketing teams inform users about this change?
- [ ] Yes
- [x] No
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai
-->
## Summary by CodeRabbit
- **New Features**
- Introduced a new input parameter `is-pg-build` to several workflows
for better customization of PostgreSQL builds.
- Enhanced Docker image build processes with dynamic base image tagging
based on pull request conditions.
- **Chores**
- Updated GitHub Actions workflows to improve build automation and
conditional logic handling.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
## Description
> [!TIP]
> _Add a TL;DR when the description is longer than 500 words or
extremely technical (helps the content, marketing, and DevRel team)._
>
> _Please also include relevant motivation and context. List any
dependencies that are required for this change. Add links to Notion,
Figma or any other documents that might be relevant to the PR._
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=""
### 🔍 Cypress test results
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment: Cypress test results -->
> [!CAUTION]
> If you modify the content in this section, you are likely to disrupt
the CI result for your PR.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: Cypress test results -->
## Communication
Should the DevRel and Marketing teams inform users about this change?
- [ ] Yes
- [ ] No
---------
Co-authored-by: yatinappsmith <84702014+yatinappsmith@users.noreply.github.com>
## Description
- update node version and appropriate git workflow
- added the path to webpack cache folder, this should speed up bundle
creation about a minute
[Test, build and push Docker
Image](https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/actions/runs/8421752151)
[Build Client, Server & Run only
Cypress](https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/actions/runs/8421752151)
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai
-->
## Summary by CodeRabbit
- **Chores**
- Updated actions/cache and actions/setup-node to v4 across various
workflows for improved caching and Node.js setup.
- Modified the `yarn install` command to use `--immutable` flag,
enhancing dependency management.
- **Documentation**
- Updated comments within workflows to include cautionary and important
notes, ensuring better clarity.
- **Refactor**
- Adjusted caching paths and keys for more efficient caching behavior.
- Changed Node.js installation to version 20.11.1 in Dockerfile,
aligning with the latest version for better performance and security.
- **Tests**
- Modified assertion in `getCurrentLocationSaga` test to check for the
presence of a property, improving test accuracy.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
---------
Co-authored-by: Aman Agarwal <aman@appsmith.com>
## Description
> added event_name schedule in client-build and rts-build to run them in
scheduled run as well
#### Type of change
- Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception)
>
>
## Testing
> running TBP workflow to ensure nothing is impacted.
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [x] TBP Run
## Checklist:
#### Dev activity
- [ ] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [ ] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [ ] My changes generate no new warnings
- [ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [ ] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag
#### QA activity:
- [ ] [Speedbreak
features](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#speedbreakers-)
have been covered
- [ ] Test plan covers all impacted features and [areas of
interest](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#areas-of-interest-)
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by project stakeholders and other
QA members
- [ ] Manually tested functionality on DP
- [ ] We had an implementation alignment call with stakeholders post QA
Round 2
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by SDET/manual QA
- [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after Cypress tests were reviewed
- [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after JUnit tests were reviewed
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai
-->
## Summary by CodeRabbit
- **Chores**
- Updated build workflows to trigger on scheduled events.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
## Description
- Now saving the docker image in cache instead of uploading it as an
artefact to save time
#### Type of change
- Workflow changes
## Testing
- Workflow run
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai
-->
## Summary by CodeRabbit
- **Chores**
- Updated CI workflows to use GitHub Actions cache for Docker images
instead of uploading to artifacts.
- Removed `restore-keys` from Yarn dependency caching for a more
streamlined caching process.
- Improved conditions for Docker image caching to enhance CI efficiency.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai
-->
## Summary by CodeRabbit
- **Chores**
- Updated GitHub Actions workflows to use `actions/checkout@v4` for
improved performance and reliability.
- Removed `fetch-depth` parameter to simplify checkout steps across
various workflows.
- Standardized quote usage for consistency in workflow files.
- **Documentation**
- Adjusted formatting and descriptions in workflow files for better
clarity and readability.
- **Refactor**
- Aligned multiple workflow files to follow a consistent structure and
naming convention.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
fetch-depth 0 causes the Github workflow to checkout the entire Git
history. This is not required. We only need to check out the head of the
commit. By default, actions/checkout has fetch-depth=1, hence removing
it from the workflow completely for simplicity.
When running Appsmith release image, it's currently using production CS,
which is causing a lot of incompatibility related errors since `release`
moves much faster than prod.
This changes this. Note that for `:latest` and `:nightly` images, we do
NOT change this default. There's no change for Docker images with those
tags. We _only_ want change `:release` image, DP images, and images
built for Cypress runs.
This should enable using unchanged layers from the `release` image, as a
cache, and build PR images faster. We only do this for images built for
PRs and not for direct `release` or `master` branches.
## Description
1. Move everything related to client from app folder to client folder
(`.yarn`, `yarn.lock`, package.json, .gitignore)
2. Move `ast` and `rst` to client packages
3. Fix running scripts in packages
4. Add running unit tests in packages in CI
TODO: It is necessary to consider enabling the `nmHoistingLimits:
workspaces` option, since now all packages are hoisted to the root,
there may be issues with dependencies in workspaces. Also, there is a
possibility of implicit use of packages.
https://yarnpkg.com/configuration/yarnrc#nmHoistingLimits
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes#23333
#### Type of change
- Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception)
## Testing
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [x] Manual
- [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
- [ ] 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
Co-authored-by: Valera Melnikov <melnikov.vv@greendatasoft.ru>
## Description
- Modularised the docker image building
- Optimised the `install dependancies` step to reduce the time from 8
mins to 30-40 secs now
- Removed unnecessary steps from the ci-dubugging.yml
- Added ci-debug.sh file to ease the steps to run ngrok while running
ci-debugging
- Changes made to below files
1. integration-tests-command.yml
2. test-build-docker-image.yml
3. ci-test.yml
4. build-docker-image.yml
## Type of change
- integration-tests-command.yml
- test-build-docker-image.yml
- ci-test.yml
- build-docker-image.yml
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Manual
## Checklist:
### QA activity:
- [ ] Test plan has been approved by relevant developers
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by QA
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by either SDET or
manual QA
- [ ] Organized project review call with relevant stakeholders after
Round 1/2 of QA
- [ ] Added Test Plan Approved label after reveiwing all Cypress test
## Description
- Added ci-debugging.yml to enable local debugging
- Modularised docker image building with build-docker-image.yml
## Type of change
- ci-debugging.yml
- build-docker-image.yml
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Manual
## Checklist:
### QA activity:
- [ ] Test plan has been approved by relevant developers
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by QA
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by either SDET or
manual QA
- [ ] Organized project review call with relevant stakeholders after
Round 1/2 of QA
- [ ] Added Test Plan Approved label after reveiwing all Cypress test
