8eac493b80
6 Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 |
||
|
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> |
||
|
Anand Srinivasan
|
9dd015a1e6
|
feat: peek overlay nested properties + perf improvements (#23414)
Fixes #23057 Fixes #23054 ## Description TL;DR Added support for peeking on nested properties. e.g. `Api1.data[0].id`. This won't work when: - local variables are involved in the expression. e.g. `Api1.data[x].id` won't support peeking at the variable `[x]` or anything after that. - library code is involved e.g. `moment`, `_` etc... - when functions are called. e.g. Api1.data[0].id.toFixed() Because these cases requires evaluation. <img width="355" alt="image" src="https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/assets/66776129/d09d1f0d-1692-46f5-8ec1-592f4fe75f7a"> #### Media (old vs new) https://www.loom.com/share/dedcf113439c4ee2a19028acca54045e ## Performance improvements: - Use AST to identify expressions instead marking text manually. - This reduces the number of markers we process (~ half). - Before  - After  - AST logs https://www.loom.com/share/ddde93233cc8470ea04309d8a8332240 #### Type of change - Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue) - New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality) ## Testing > #### How Has This Been Tested? - [x] Manual - [x] Jest - [x] Cypress > > #### Test Plan https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/issues/2402 #### Issues raised during DP testing https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/23414#issuecomment-1553164908 ## 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/Test-plan-implementation#speedbreaker-features-to-consider-for-every-change) have been covered - [x] Test plan covers all impacted features and [areas of interest](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans/_edit#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 - [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 |
||
|
Apeksha Bhosale
|
2b25e1e9b0
|
fix: Improving performance of JS evaluations by splitting the data tree (#21547)
## Description This is the second phase of the split data tree. In the previous version, we collected all config paths in each entity and put them in the `__config__` property. All those config properties do get inserted into final data tree which we don't need at all. As part of this change, we will be creating another tree i.e **'configTree'** which will contain all config of each entity. unEvalTree is split into 2 trees => 1. unEvalTree 2. configTree Example: previous unEvalTree Api1 content <img width="1766" alt="image" src="https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/7846888/215990868-0b095421-e7b8-44bc-89aa-065b35e237d6.png"> After this change unEvalTree Api1 content <img width="1758" alt="image" src="https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/7846888/215991045-506fb10a-645a-4aad-8e77-0f3786a86977.png"> Note- above example doesn't have '__config__' property configTree Api1 content <img width="1760" alt="image" src="https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/7846888/215991169-a2e03443-5d6a-4ff1-97c5-a12593e46395.png"> ## Type of change - Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception) - #11351 ## 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 - [ ] 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> |
||
|
Ivan Akulov
|
424d2f6965
|
chore: upgrade to prettier v2 + enforce import types (#21013)Co-authored-by: Satish Gandham <hello@satishgandham.com> Co-authored-by: Satish Gandham <satish.iitg@gmail.com>
## 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
|
||
|
Anand Srinivasan
|
73ba3a39c5
|
feat: peek overlay (#20053)
## Description Hover over appsmith properties in code to peek data. <img width="380" alt="image" src="https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/66776129/217707810-164924c0-36e8-4450-b087-18af333c7547.png"> This right now covers: - Queries/JsObjects/Apis/Widgets and their properties. - Note: For query or Api, this'll work only upto `Api.data`. (Not `Api.data.users[0].id`) - This is because of the way codemirror renders code and we'll need more time to see how this is best handled. Misc: - added `react-append-to-body` to work with variable height for peek overlay - we needed a container that doesn't apply `position: absolute` to itself - Because, when a container's `height` is zero with `position: absolute` (like in bp3-portal), child elements cannot be positioned using just the `bottom` property - with `react-append-to-body`, the container won't have `position: absolute`, instead it is applied to the child element `<div>` directly, hence we can position using `bottom` property. Fixes #17507 Media https://www.loom.com/share/0f17918fcd604805b023c215d57fce43 ## Type of change - New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality) ## How Has This Been Tested? - Manual ### Test Plan https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/issues/2173 https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/issues/2178 ### Issues raised during DP testing https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/20053#issuecomment-1420545330 https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/20053#issuecomment-1424427913 ## 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] Test plan has been approved by relevant developers - [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by QA - [x] 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 |
