## Description
This includes
> Building a new image for airgapped instances
> Running ci-tests on airgapped image
> Running cypress tests selectively ignoring non supported features for
airgap like Templates, Custom JS lib and also alternating test
behaviours for some tests like tests using mock db, since it doesn't
work on airgap we have to create a ds. So this selective testing was
done using cypress-tags
> Having a new client build for airgapped images which bundles all the
assets.
> And changes in the workflow files to account for all the above.
With airgap, we can ignore certain tests and also need to account for
tests using mock datasources and such by creating new datasources
instead of mock datasources. Since those are blocked. So to perform a
selective testing we are using a plugin called `cypress-tags` and to
perform conditional testing when required we use the `AIRGAPPED` cypress
env. This PR introduces both and also modified the codebase to support
this new way of running cypress.
Since we can't trigger `/ok-to-test` on this because ci-test needs the
CYPRESS_EXCLUDE_TAGS and slash command doesn't dispatch from current
branch,
I manually triggered the `TBP` workflow to run ci-test on this branch.
And the new `TBP airgap` workflow to run ci-test on airgapped docker
image on this branch.
Here is the link to the run
https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/actions/runs/4882041416Fixes#22007Fixes#22814
## Type of change
> Please delete options that are not relevant.
- New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
- Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception)
## 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
- [x] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] My changes generate no new warnings
- [x] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [x] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag
### QA activity:
- [ ] Test plan has been approved by relevant developers
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by QA
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by either SDET or
manual QA
- [ ] Organized project review call with relevant stakeholders after
Round 1/2 of QA
- [ ] Added Test Plan Approved label after reveiwing all Cypress test
## Description
- Added workflow to build client and server without running tests
#### Type of change
- Added workflow file
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- Manual
## Description
Cleaned up template heading and section styles on PR template
- Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception)
---------
Co-authored-by: Hetu Nandu <hetu@appsmith.com>
## Description
Increased clientbuild runner
## Type of change
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Manual
### Test Plan
None
### Issues raised during DP testing
None
## 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:
- [ ] 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 step to check the PR approval status
- Used another plugin for merge
## Type of change
- ci-merge-check.yml
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Github actions
## 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 UPDATE_LABLES and update the rename variables with more
meaningful name
## Type of change
- ci-merge-check.yml
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Github Actions
## 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 logging for auto merge in ci-merge-check
## Type of change
- ci-merge-check.yml
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Github actions
## 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
- Updated requirements for auto merge in ci-merge-check
## Type of change
- ci-merge-check.yml
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Github actions
## 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
- Fix for ci-merge-check.yml issues
## Type of change
- ci-merge-check.yml
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Github actions
## 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
- Consider the latest one if there are more than one 'Test plan
approved' output in the api
## Type of change
- ci-merge-check.yml
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Github Actions
## 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
- Fixing ci-test-result in ci-merge-check
- Added Authorisation header in the curl requests to support this in EE
## Type of change
- ci-merge-check.yml
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Github Actions
## 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
- Fix ci-merge-check issue
## Type of change
- ci-merge-check.yml
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Guthub actions
## 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 logic to handle few more cases in ci-merge-check
## Type of change
- ci-merge-check.yml
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Github Actions
## 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
- Fix syntax error in ci-merge-check
## Type of change
- ci-merge-check.yml
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Github actions
## 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
- Modified the logic to pick the last comment for ci-merge-check
## Type of change
- ci-merge-check.yml
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Github actions
## 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
- Fix to fetch the sha id from client_payload instead of
event.pull_request in ci-merge-check
## Type of change
- ci-merge-check.yml
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Github actions
## 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
- Fix for ci-merge-check workflow
## Type of change
- ci-merge-check.yml
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Github actions
## 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
- Fixing ci-merge-check.yml
## Type of change
- ci-merge-check.yml
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Github actions
## 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
- This PR updates the text message that gets commented after a PR run
## Type of change
- Yml file update
## Checklist:
### QA activity:
- [X] Added Test Plan Approved label after reviewing all changes
## Description
- This fixes the Firestore spec that fails sometimes in CI due to all
runs accessing the same cloud collection for validation.
- This PR also adds comments to PR - if all cypress cases passed, right
now there is no comment
## Type of change
- Script update
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Cypress CI runs
## Checklist:
### QA activity:
- [X] Added Test Plan Approved label after reviewing all Cypress test
GitHub's Variables, unlike Secrets, don't get masked in the output, and
are ideal for non-secret... _variables_. I'm switching on such secret
here, and depending on our experience with this, we'll look to moving
more.
Of course, goes without saying, do NOT use these variables for secrets.
When in doubt, use Secrets.
[Learn more about
Variables](https://docs.github.com/en/actions/learn-github-actions/variables).
## Description
- Added 'Workflow run' and 'Commit' for the failed spec comments
## Type of change
- YML Changes
## How Has This Been Tested?
- CI run
## 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
---------
Co-authored-by: Aishwarya UR <aishwarya@appsmith.com>
The License key is unused in this repo. Setting it here is misleading,
and can cause confusions at best, or missed accidental License failures
at worst.
This PR removes the License key occurrences from `ci-test.yml`.
Note: Please review/approve only. Don't merge. This will likely cause a
conflict, so I'd like to be available when this is merged so I can
resolve the conflict. Thanks!
