## Description
UnEvalTree, dataTree and configTree's entities needs to be extended on
EE to accommodate module inputs and different types of modules hence the
separation.
I have added few more sanity checks in the existing code which were
throwing errors/warning on EE.
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes # (issue number)
#### 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
- [ ] 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
> 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
## Description
- Remove the config objects from widget and config maps from the widget
factory.
- Introduce methods in widget development API to dynamically fetch this
items.
- freeze the widget configuration.
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/26008
> if no issue exists, please create an issue and ask the maintainers
about this first
>
>
#### Media
> A video or a GIF is preferred. when using Loom, don’t embed because it
looks like it’s a GIF. instead, just link to the video
>
>
#### Type of change
> Please delete options that are not relevant.
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
- New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
- Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing
functionality to not work as expected)
- Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception)
- This change requires a documentation update
>
>
>
## Testing
>
#### How Has This Been Tested?
> Please describe the tests that you ran to verify your changes. Also
list any relevant details for your test configuration.
> Delete anything that is not relevant
- [x] Manual
- [ ] Jest
- [ ] Cypress
>
>
#### Test Plan
> Add Testsmith test cases links that relate to this PR
>
>
#### Issues raised during DP testing
> Link issues raised during DP testing for better visiblity and tracking
(copy link from comments dropped on this PR)
>
>
>
## Checklist:
#### Dev activity
- [ ] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [ ] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [ ] My changes generate no new warnings
- [ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [ ] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag
#### QA activity:
- [ ] [Speedbreak
features](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#speedbreakers-)
have been covered
- [x] Test plan covers all impacted features and [areas of
interest](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#areas-of-interest-)
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by project stakeholders and other
QA members
- [x] Manually tested functionality on DP
- [ ] We had an implementation alignment call with stakeholders post QA
Round 2
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by SDET/manual QA
- [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after Cypress tests were reviewed
- [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after JUnit tests were reviewed
## Description
This PR upgrades Prettier to v2 + enforces TypeScript’s [`import
type`](https://www.typescriptlang.org/docs/handbook/release-notes/typescript-3-8.html#type-only-imports-and-export)
syntax where applicable. It’s submitted as a separate PR so we can merge
it easily.
As a part of this PR, we reformat the codebase heavily:
- add `import type` everywhere where it’s required, and
- re-format the code to account for Prettier 2’s breaking changes:
https://prettier.io/blog/2020/03/21/2.0.0.html#breaking-changes
This PR is submitted against `release` to make sure all new code by team
members will adhere to new formatting standards, and we’ll have fewer
conflicts when merging `bundle-optimizations` into `release`. (I’ll
merge `release` back into `bundle-optimizations` once this PR is
merged.)
### Why is this needed?
This PR is needed because, for the Lodash optimization from
7cbb12af88,
we need to use `import type`. Otherwise, `babel-plugin-lodash` complains
that `LoDashStatic` is not a lodash function.
However, just using `import type` in the current codebase will give you
this:
<img width="962" alt="Screenshot 2023-03-08 at 17 45 59"
src="https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/2953267/223775744-407afa0c-e8b9-44a1-90f9-b879348da57f.png">
That’s because Prettier 1 can’t parse `import type` at all. To parse it,
we need to upgrade to Prettier 2.
### Why enforce `import type`?
Apart from just enabling `import type` support, this PR enforces
specifying `import type` everywhere it’s needed. (Developers will get
immediate TypeScript and ESLint errors when they forget to do so.)
I’m doing this because I believe `import type` improves DX and makes
refactorings easier.
Let’s say you had a few imports like below. Can you tell which of these
imports will increase the bundle size? (Tip: it’s not all of them!)
```ts
// app/client/src/workers/Linting/utils.ts
import { Position } from "codemirror";
import { LintError as JSHintError, LintOptions } from "jshint";
import { get, isEmpty, isNumber, keys, last, set } from "lodash";
```
It’s pretty hard, right?
What about now?
```ts
// app/client/src/workers/Linting/utils.ts
import type { Position } from "codemirror";
import type { LintError as JSHintError, LintOptions } from "jshint";
import { get, isEmpty, isNumber, keys, last, set } from "lodash";
```
Now, it’s clear that only `lodash` will be bundled.
This helps developers to see which imports are problematic, but it
_also_ helps with refactorings. Now, if you want to see where
`codemirror` is bundled, you can just grep for `import \{.*\} from
"codemirror"` – and you won’t get any type-only imports.
This also helps (some) bundlers. Upon transpiling, TypeScript erases
type-only imports completely. In some environment (not ours), this makes
the bundle smaller, as the bundler doesn’t need to bundle type-only
imports anymore.
## Type of change
- Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception)
## How Has This Been Tested?
This was tested to not break the build.
### Test Plan
> Add Testsmith test cases links that relate to this PR
### Issues raised during DP testing
> Link issues raised during DP testing for better visiblity and tracking
(copy link from comments dropped on this PR)
## Checklist:
### Dev activity
- [x] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [ ] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] My changes generate no new warnings
- [ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [ ] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag
### QA activity:
- [ ] Test plan has been approved by relevant developers
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by QA
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by either SDET or
manual QA
- [ ] Organized project review call with relevant stakeholders after
Round 1/2 of QA
- [ ] Added Test Plan Approved label after reveiwing all Cypress test
---------
Co-authored-by: Satish Gandham <hello@satishgandham.com>
Co-authored-by: Satish Gandham <satish.iitg@gmail.com>
* Evaluations and Linting now runs on separate web-workers for a much faster and responsive coding experience on Appsmith.
* Removed worker-loader webpack plugin.
