[](https://workerb.linearb.io/v2/badge/collaboration-page?magicLinkId=M7zehz4)
## Description
Cleaning up three patterns of checks to enable wds and anvil into two.
wds and anvil had to have different flags coz anvil had to play catch up
with wds, now that's not the case so it does not make sense to have two
flags.
Old patterns
- checking if the wds feature flag is enabled
- checking if the anvil feature flag is enabled
- checking if the layout system of the app is anvil
New Pattern
- checking if anvil feature flag is enabled (used only for creating an
anvil app)
- checking if layout system of the app is anvil
Fixes#32590
_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/8663918496>
> Commit: e10cc2a84ed680b29c49c5b2e8175df4c18da2f8
> Cypress dashboard url: <a
href="https://internal.appsmith.com/app/cypress-dashboard/rundetails-65890b3c81d7400d08fa9ee5?branch=master&workflowId=8663918496&attempt=1"
target="_blank">Click here!</a>
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: Cypress test results -->
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai
-->
## Summary by CodeRabbit
- **Refactor**
- Consolidated the usage of layout system checks across the application
to use a unified Anvil layout selector, enhancing consistency in
layout-related conditional logic.
- **Bug Fixes**
- Removed outdated feature flags related to the Anvil + WDS integration,
ensuring the application's feature toggling aligns with the current
development strategy.
- **Tests**
- Updated unit tests to align with the new method of layout system
determination, ensuring test environments accurately reflect production
behavior.
- **Chores**
- Cleaned up redundant code and feature flags that are no longer in use,
simplifying the codebase and reducing potential for errors.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
## Description
Removing the bulk delete applications feature as it not generally used
by many users and this was creating some UI conflicts rather than giving
us some valuable output.
Please follow this thread for more context :
https://theappsmith.slack.com/archives/C02Q4B2AGM8/p1706249168968689
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes#30660
> 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
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai
-->
## Summary by CodeRabbit
- **Refactor**
- Streamlined the application deletion process to handle multiple
deletions more efficiently.
- **Bug Fixes**
- Removed redundant code and unused features related to the multiple
selection and deletion of applications.
- **Chores**
- Cleaned up various files by removing unused imports, constants, and
state variables.
- **Documentation**
- Adjusted code comments and documentation to reflect removal of
multiple application deletion features and related UI elements.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
> Pull Request Template
>
> Use this template to quickly create a well written pull request.
Delete all quotes before creating the pull request.
>
## Description
> Add a TL;DR when description is extra long (helps content team)
>
> 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
>
>
#### 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
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai
-->
## Summary by CodeRabbit
- **New Features**
- Added new workspace search functionality in the search bar.
- Introduced a help button for user assistance.
- Implemented new UI components for workspace selection and management.
- Enhanced application card with edit permission checks.
- Integrated workspace actions for creating and fetching workspaces
directly from the UI.
- **Improvements**
- Improved workspace and application fetching logic.
- Enhanced Global Search with updated import paths and logic.
- Refined the layout and styling of the applications page and sub-header
components.
- Optimized workspace-related sagas and reducers for better performance
and maintainability.
- **Bug Fixes**
- Fixed tooltip functionality in "Reconnect Datasources" within
templates.
- Corrected test logic for forking templates and applications.
- Updated Cypress test commands for consistency and reliability.
- Addressed issues with application URL test cases and workspace import
logic.
- **Documentation**
- Updated messages and constants related to workspace and application UI
elements for clearer user communication.
- **Chores**
- Cleaned up unused code and simplified selectors across various
components and tests.
- Refactored application and workspace selectors for improved code
organization.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
---------
Co-authored-by: Dipyaman Biswas <dipyaman@appsmith.com>
Co-authored-by: Abhijeet <abhi.nagarnaik@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Nidhi <nidhi@appsmith.com>
Co-authored-by: Goutham Pratapa <goutham@appsmith.com>
Co-authored-by: Ankita Kinger <ankita@appsmith.com>
Co-authored-by: albinAppsmith <87797149+albinAppsmith@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Shrikant Sharat Kandula <shrikant@appsmith.com>
Co-authored-by: Nayan <nayan@appsmith.com>
Co-authored-by: Rishabh Rathod <rishabh.rathod@appsmith.com>
## Description
Removed the guided tour code.
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/30332
#### Type of change
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
- 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
- [ ] 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
- [ ] 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**
- Streamlined onboarding process by removing guided tour features.
- Refined action and message management for a more intuitive user
experience.
- Enhanced property controls generation for better user interaction.
- **Refactor**
- Simplified various components by removing unnecessary guided tour
logic.
- Improved application and page sagas for more efficient operation.
- Refined editor components for a smoother user interface.
- **Documentation**
- Updated message constants for clearer user guidance.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
## Description
Reverted consolidated api changes and also some CE related changes to
make it compatible with EE.
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Reverts #29650 & #29939
#### Type of change
- Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception)
>
>
>
## Testing
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [ ] Manual
- [ ] JUnit
- [ ] 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
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai
-->
## Summary by CodeRabbit
- **Refactor**
- Enhanced the reliability and efficiency of Cypress e2e tests by
adjusting wait conditions and assertions.
- Simplified network request handling across various test cases.
- Updated test logic to align with changes in application data structure
and network requests.
- **Tests**
- Improved test stability for application import/export, Git sync, page
load behavior, and widget interactions.
- Refined mobile responsiveness tests to accurately validate layout
conversions and autofill behaviors.
- **Chores**
- Removed deprecated feature flags and code related to consolidated page
load functionality.
- Cleaned up unused parameters and simplified action payloads in Redux
actions.
- **Documentation**
- Updated comments for clarity in test specifications.
- **Style**
- Adjusted code styling for consistency across test suites.
- **Bug Fixes**
- Fixed data retrieval logic in tests to ensure correct data extraction
from API responses.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
## Description
Our objective in this pr is to improve the page load time of our
application by calling a consolidated-api which contains all the
resources to load our pages. This PR contains all the client side
changes to call the consolidated-api as well as feature flag related
changes.
Fixes#29650 & #29939
#### 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
>
>
#### 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
- [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
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai
-->
## Summary by CodeRabbit
- **Refactor**
- Updated network request aliases and response handling in end-to-end
tests.
- **New Features**
- Introduced a new API class `ConsolidatedPageLoadApi` for fetching
consolidated page load data.
- **Tests**
- Enhanced testing for application URL navigation and data retrieval.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
## Description
Today when we import any app, the initial values for our unconfigured
datasources are dependant on the exported file from server which doesn't
include all of the formconfig. This PR solves that issue and updates the
server definition of the datasource with the new initial values. Also
added a check to not make an API call if the initial value is correct.
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes#29409
#### 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
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai
-->
## Summary by CodeRabbit
- **Refactor**
- Enhanced comparison logic in the initialization of data sources to
improve performance.
- Updated form control utilities to allow excluding encrypted fields
from initial configurations.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
Reverts appsmithorg/appsmith#29942
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai
-->
## Summary by CodeRabbit
- **Refactor**
- Streamlined the process for setting workspace and editor IDs across
various components and actions.
- Enhanced the route matching mechanism for improved navigation within
the app.
- **Bug Fixes**
- Corrected typos and variable naming inconsistencies to ensure clarity
and consistency in the codebase.
- **Style**
- Adjusted UI components for better accessibility, including the correct
use of Aria attributes.
- **Chores**
- Removed unused imports and code to clean up the codebase and improve
maintainability.
- **Documentation**
- Updated internal documentation to reflect changes in function
signatures and payload structures.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
## Description
This pull request adds the `initDatasourceConnectionDuringImportRequest`
action to the `partialImportSaga` function in order to initialize the
datasource connection during the partial import process.
<ins>Root cause</ins>
During partial import, we were not initializing the datasources with
default values.
This for some reason, happens only from client side and has no handling
on the server side. We replicated the flow during normal import and
added a call to this redux
event(`INIT_DATASOURCE_CONNECTION_DURING_IMPORT_REQUEST`), which ensured
that our datasources were initialized with defaults.
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes#29915
#### 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
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai
-->
## Summary by CodeRabbit
- **New Features**
- Enhanced widget import process with automatic datasource connection
initialization.
- **Refactor**
- Improved internal checks for datasource connections during import
workflows.
- **Documentation**
- Updated comments and documentation to reflect new logic for datasource
initialization.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
Reverts appsmithorg/appsmith#29873
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai
-->
## Summary by CodeRabbit
- **Refactor**
- Simplified the action and payload structures for setting workspace IDs
across various components and sagas.
- Streamlined environment configuration fetching and workspace ID
management.
- Removed unnecessary editor ID references and updated related
components to align with the new logic.
- Enhanced code clarity in routing by using direct matching functions.
- **Bug Fixes**
- Fixed a typo in the state variable within the `SwitchEnvironment`
component.
- **Chores**
- Cleaned up unused imports and variables related to application and
editor IDs.
- **Style**
- No visible style changes to report.
- **Documentation, Tests, Revert**
- No changes in these categories to report.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
## Description
Refactoring multiple environments to use `editorId` instead of `appId`
for supporting this feature on package editor on EE.
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes [#28502](https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/28502)
#### 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
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai
-->
## Summary by CodeRabbit
- **Refactor**
- Modified functions to accept object parameters instead of individual
values
- Updated payload structure for specific functions
- Modified parameter types for action handlers
- Updated handling of workspace and editor IDs within sagas
- Added new function and modified existing functions in storage
- Imported and used functions from "selectors/editorSelectors" in
specific components
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
## Description
- Removed feature flag
`ab_onboarding_flow_start_with_data_dev_only_enabled` used for
development of Start with data
- Updated the event for Start with data with `shortcut` -> `true` as
event param
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes#29284
> 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
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai
-->
## Summary by CodeRabbit
## Summary by CodeRabbit
- **New Features**
- Enhanced app creation process with a new option to create apps from
data.
- **Improvements**
- Streamlined onboarding flow by removing the development-only feature
flag for starting with data.
- **Refactor**
- Renamed a property to better reflect its purpose in enabling new data
source creation.
- **Chores**
- Removed unused feature flags and related code for a cleaner codebase.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
## Description
This PR stores the workspaceId in appropriate redux state for start with
data, and it also fetches list of plugins which are required to show
list of datasources during onboarding.
Workspace id is further required to fetch plugins, test and save the
datasource
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes#28730
#### 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
- [ ] 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
- [ ] 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>
Co-authored-by: Aman Agarwal <aman@appsmith.com>
Co-authored-by: “sneha122” <“sneha@appsmith.com”>
## Description
Fixes a couple of issues with branch protection
- #28727 Toast message issues
- #28726 Pull count on pull icon
- #28748 Display remote branches in list
- #28697 Pulling protected branch shows discard toast
- Added branch name to default branch toast
- #28698 Select not scrolling bug
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Mentioned above
#### 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
- 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
## 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#27007Fixes#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
## Description
Removes branch on fork redirection for git connected applications
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes#27690
Only fixes the client redirection issue
#### 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
- [ ] 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
## 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
## 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
## Description
Set up experiment, to check if users have a chance of activated if they
see a Table widget already present on the canvas when they create a new
app. This is behind a feature flag
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes#25630
#### Media
https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/assets/12022471/74623e4e-782d-4223-9690-6f7b3eabacf4
#### Type of change
- Experimental change ( behind feature flags)
## 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
## Description
This PR fixes forking related issues introduced in plugins like Google
Sheets, Amazon S3, DynamoDB, MongoDB etc.
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes#24566
> 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
- 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
> 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
- [ ] 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: “sneha122” <“sneha@appsmith.com”>
## Description
* Fork within application, this needs 2 things:
* Load the workspaceList even when we have setModalClose variable set
* When fork is successful, on the next page it should close the forking
modal
* Adds forking model to EditorAppName menu
* Adds FETCH_APPLICATION_INIT to forkApplicationSaga
* This makes sure that when we fork an app from within another app,
it will reinitialize the new app properly.
* Corrects workspaceId variable for forkApplicationSaga
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes # (issue number)
#21470
#### Media
#### Type of change
- New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
## Testing
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [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
- [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/Test-plan-implementation#speedbreaker-features-to-consider-for-every-change)
have been covered
- [ ] 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
- [ ] 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
We have `Fork` and `Duplicate` options which essentially do the same
thing, the former one provides us more flexibility, hence we are
removing the `Duplicate` option completely from our app.
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes#13169
#### Media
#### Type of change
- Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing
functionality to not work as expected)
## Testing
>
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [x] Cypress
- [x] Manual
#### 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
- [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/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
## Description
> This PR sets a field `isPartialImport` in the
`/{defaultApplicationId}/fork/{workspaceId}` POST API response, based on
which the client will show the reconnection modal.
> If the `isPartialImport` field is True, the client has to show the
reconnection modal.
> Earlier, this field was only added as part of the Import flow and not
the forking flow, hence the reconnect datasource modal was only shown
while importing an app from JSON when datasource credentials are not
present.
This PR will solve the following issues:
1. Create a new field `forkWithConfiguration` that will represent
whether datasource credentials will be shared while forking or not.
Issue #21691 (Initial PR #22157, but had to be reverted due to the
reconnection modal functionality, not being present in the forking code)
2. Enable Reconnection Datasource Modal while forking an app if
datasource credentials are not shared. Issue #22305
3. Reset flags `forkWithConfiguration` and `exportWithConfiguration` to
False when forking/cloning/exporting an app. Issues #22165#22166
4. Reconnect Datasource Modal is not being triggered when forking apps
using Google Sheets datasource.
https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/16767
## Frontend changes
Fronted changes involve showing the reconnect modal depending of the
flag sent by the backend post forking. So far on prod datasources need
not require re-authentication, with this change they will be prompted to
re-authenticate.
Cypress tests will be pushed post merging this PR as cypress CI uses
release backend. Have created a PR for it
d703a00a7c (diff-2f04da010b929ec86d1064b51ce570cc33fee7481997ff5477a48e3527773dd9R7)https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/67054171/234506804-f1b5f21b-dd4d-4616-8cfe-6b06649d5df6.mov
## Deploy preview
https://ce-22390.dp.appsmith.com/Fixes#22305
Fixes https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/22609
## Type of change
- Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing
functionality to not work as expected)
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Manual
- JUnit
- Cypress
### Test Plan
-
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1vGYaKHtl8-g7--zBEAP219DCZLhoNah6IwjiijJlQAc/edit#gid=0
### 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:
- [X] Test plan has been approved by relevant developers
- [X] 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: akash-codemonk <67054171+akash-codemonk@users.noreply.github.com>
## Description
Allowing users to upload a logo to show in the navigation along with
toggles to hide logo or application title.
Fixes#20134Fixes#21946Fixes#22260
## Media
<video
src="https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/22471214/235613131-129ac2ed-b994-4eab-8eba-7db297c2f7fd.mp4"><video>
## 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/2376
### 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
- [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
Making sure that whenever a user creates a new app, we will have the
entity explorer will uncollapsed Widgets, Query Datasource sections so
that the user can find the entities they create easily
Fixes#21893
Media
https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/12022471/233955568-52b0e645-86b8-4058-adb3-48c9f4a7b501.mov
## Type of change
- New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Manual
- 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
## Description
- On air-gapped instances we can't fetch appsmith assets from S3, that
will result in broken which is not desirable.
- So this adds a script and util function which searches the client and
server codebase for the assets url and downloads the image and puts it
in the `public` folder so that the browser can access those even in an
airgapped instance since the assets are being served locally.
> Way to serve assets locally.
Fixes#22004
> if no issue exists, please create an issue and ask the maintainers
about this first
Media
https://vdqm24wed6.vmaker.com/record/IquS90WbWgS1I0bz - blocked certain
api routes from getting called on airgap
## Description
> Code splitting FE files to support app level invites on Business
edition.
Fixes [#21018](https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/21018)
[#21015](https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/21015)
## Type of change
- Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception)
## How Has This Been Tested?
> Nothing is affected on CE by this change.
- Manual
## 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:
- [ ] 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
