a2bfe450b6
6 Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Vemparala Surya Vamsi
|
94ad2b9eb2
|
chore: resetGlobal fix and makeParentsDependOnChild add dependency optimisation (#32827)
## Description This as part of eval v4 roadmap project#2 optimisation, over here we optimisate resetGlobalScope and the addNode operation in the updateDependencyMap function. The following are the optimisations: - resetWorkerGlobalScope changed library and keyword lookup from array to set, this is to reduce the time complexity. - triggering resetWorkerGlobalScope after the first return statement, to remove redundant calls when code returns early. - in makeParentsDependOnChild limiting the add operations getting triggered when the dependencies are the same. - Added a library accessor code to help in generating a set when required. Noticed a 15% reduction in webworker scripting for a customer's app. Limiting the addNode to only affected nodes in the dependencyMap will be handled in a separate PR. Fixes #32811 > [!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/8782269083> > Commit: bcc890545851d9ba76beef4036fda98b9d50bd0e > Cypress dashboard url: <a href="https://internal.appsmith.com/app/cypress-dashboard/rundetails-65890b3c81d7400d08fa9ee5?branch=master&workflowId=8782269083&attempt=2" target="_blank">Click here!</a> <!-- end of auto-generated comment: Cypress test results --> ## Communication Should the DevRel and Marketing teams inform users about this change? - [ ] Yes - [ ] No <!-- This is an auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai --> ## Summary by CodeRabbit - **New Features** - Introduced new testing for dependency handling in `DependencyMapUtils`. - Added a new Cypress test spec for ClientSide SettingsPane. - **Refactor** - Enhanced dependency management in `DependencyMapUtils` to prevent redundant dependencies. - Updated handling of JavaScript libraries in the evaluation workflow to improve performance and accuracy. - **Tests** - Expanded test coverage to ensure robust dependency management and JavaScript library handling. - **Documentation** - Updated existing summaries to reflect changes in JavaScript library management and test specifications. <!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai --> |
||
|
Ayush Pahwa
|
5fdc0a1ef9
|
feat: workflows assign request on browser (#31159)
## Description We are allowing users to have write workflows assign request queries in the JS object editor for the workflows editor. This means, users should get autocomplete for `appsmith.workflows.assignRequest` and the arguments required should be shown in the autocomplete also. To enable this, following changes have been made 1) Add empty workflows object to the appsmith function type in store and and add ee only type definitions to the `EntityDefinitions` for appsmith namespace. 2) Replace entityFunctions as static variable and use a function which appends EE entity functions. 3) Added types for ee only functions 4) Retain the `isMainJsObject` flag for the js file when updates happen. #### PR fixes following issue(s) Fixes # (issue number) #### Type of change - 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 - [ ] 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** - Introduced new autocomplete definitions for enhanced code editor suggestions. - Added support for categorizing entities in the Explorer panel using `GROUP_TYPES` for improved organization and navigation. - **Refactor** - Updated the action helpers and reducers to support new properties and ensure state consistency. - Improved the structure for autocomplete helper functions, facilitating easier extension and maintenance. - **Chores** - Established foundational code for future development with empty enums and placeholder functions. <!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai --> |
||
|
Rishabh Rathod
|
30163933a9
|
chore: CE changes for linting (#28542)
## Description #### PR fixes following issue(s) Fixes # (issue number) #### 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 |
||
|
Dipyaman Biswas
|
af9a625de9
|
feat: add feature flags to workers. (#27258)
## Description Adding feature flags to Lint and Eval workers which will be used to compute the feature in EE #### PR fixes following issue(s) Fixes #https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith-ee/issues/1905 #### Type of change > Please delete options that are not relevant. - New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality) - Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected) > > > ## 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 - [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 |
||
|
Valera Melnikov
|
f5a0e41f60
|
chore: update eslint and dependencies then fix revealed errors (#27908)
## Description Update eslint and dependencies then fix revealed errors |
||
|
Favour Ohanekwu
|
e6f2dcacde
|
feat: Improve Linting performance (#23865)
## Description This PR introduces a new architecture, making evaluation and linting independent. <img width="500" alt="Screenshot 2023-07-04 at 17 24 40" src="https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/assets/46670083/00b1eab9-cd79-4442-b51a-5345c2d6c4da"> In the previous architecture, one dependency graph was used to hold the relationship between entities in the application and subsequently, the "evaluation order" and "paths to lint" were generated. Although similar, the dependency graph required for evaluation and linting differ. For example, trigger fields should not depend on any other entity/entity path in the eval's dependency graph since they are not reactive. This is not the case for the linting dependency graph. ## Performance - This PR introduces "lint only" actions. These actions trigger linting, but not evaluation. For example, UPDATE_JS_ACTION_BODY_INIT (which is fired immediately after a user edits the body of a JS Object). Since linting fires without waiting for a successful update on the server, **response time decreases by 40%** (from 2s to 1.2s). - Reduction in time taken to generate paths requiring linting. <img width="715" alt="Screenshot 2023-07-04 at 18 10 52" src="https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/assets/46670083/d73a4bfc-de73-4fa7-bdca-af1e5d8ce8a1"> #### PR fixes following issue(s) Fixes #23447 Fixes #23166 Fixes #24194 Fixes #23720 Fixes #23868 Fixes #21895 Latest DP: https://appsmith-r3f9e325p-get-appsmith.vercel.app/ #### Type of change - Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception) ## Testing > #### How Has This Been Tested? - [x] Manual - [ ] Jest - [ ] Cypress > > #### Test Plan https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/23865#issuecomment-1606738633 > > #### Issues raised during DP testing https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/23865#issuecomment-1608779227 response: https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/23865#issuecomment-1619677033 > > > ## 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/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) - [x] 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 --------- Co-authored-by: arunvjn <arun@appsmith.com> Co-authored-by: Ivan Akulov <mail@iamakulov.com> |