## Description
This PR fixes the failing tests in ImportApplicationServiceTests when
the tests are run separately.
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes#29845
#### 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
- [x] 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**
- Adjusted the test setup for improved reliability.
- Enhanced a specific test case to cover invalid plugin references for
data sources.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
## Description
This PR adds the logic back to clone an application when Git repo is
deleted from local file system.
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes#29047
#### Media
#### Type of change
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
## Testing
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [x] Manual
- [x] JUnit
- [ ] Jest
- [ ] Cypress
#### Test Plan
#### Issues raised during DP testing
## 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
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai
-->
## Summary by CodeRabbit
- **New Features**
- Improved handling for cases where a linked Git repository is not
found, ensuring smoother application cloning and branch management.
- **Tests**
- Added tests to verify new behavior when a local Git repository is
missing and needs to be cloned from a remote source.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
## Description
Currently, a theme is a separate entity that is tied to an application.
With the new WDS and the new theming engine, we don't need the theme to
be a separate entity. It can be just a few additional properties of an
application ( just like how navigation settings work today.
More can be found here -
https://www.notion.so/appsmith/New-Theme-Settings-c28bde5baae6424c8742384565d37089
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/29624
#### Media
#### Type of change
- New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
## Testing
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [ ] Manual
- [ ] JUnit
#### 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 theme customization settings, allowing users to personalize
the appearance of their applications with options for accent color,
border radius, sizing, and density.
- **Enhancements**
- Updated application update process to include theme settings as part
of the configuration.
- **Tests**
- Added tests to ensure theme settings are correctly applied and
persisted across application versions.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
## Description
Tests for partial export flow
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai
-->
## Summary by CodeRabbit
- **Tests**
- Introduced a new test suite for partial export functionality, ensuring
resources like datasources and actions can be exported correctly under
various configurations.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
## Description
Move from all the manual process of exporting app and filling so many
details, make template upload process a 1 click action.
Current, the step is manual. One has to export the app manually, and
then upload to s3, get the APP URL and page name correct and there is a
lot of room for error. All of this can be automated.
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes https://github.com/appsmithorg/cloud-services/issues/1454
#### Type of change
- Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception)
## Testing
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [ ] Manual
#### 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 a new feature for publishing templates under a "use-case"
category.
- Implemented a simplified endpoint for publishing community templates.
- **Bug Fixes**
- Streamlined the template publishing process to enhance user
experience.
- **Refactor**
- Consolidated template-related data transfer objects to a more generic
naming convention.
- Refactored the publishing methods to align with the new template
categorization.
- **Documentation**
- Updated API documentation to reflect new endpoints and usage patterns.
- **Tests**
- Modified existing tests to accommodate changes in template DTO naming
and publishing logic.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
## Description
A refactor in the analytics events for Git. Also adds
isSystemGenerated=false for regular commits.
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes#26769
#### 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 Git integration with the inclusion of repository URLs in
auto-commit events.
- Improved analytics tracking by utilizing repository URLs for version
information.
- **Refactor**
- Standardized event naming by replacing string literals with enum
constants in Git-related operations.
- **Bug Fixes**
- Fixed an issue in the analytics service by correcting the method
signature for user ID hashing.
- **Documentation**
- Updated internal documentation to reflect changes in analytics and Git
service logic.
- **Tests**
- Expanded test coverage to account for new repository URL handling in
auto-commit events.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
## Description
> Remove FF4J
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes#24872
> 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
- Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception)
## Testing
>
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [ ] Manual
- [x] 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**
- Simplified the feature flag checking process, removing dependencies on
external libraries.
- Improved error handling in feature flag services for more robust
operation.
- **Bug Fixes**
- Adjusted feature flag refresh logic to ensure accurate status
representation.
- **Tests**
- Updated test cases to align with the new feature flag checking logic
and error handling improvements.
- **Documentation**
- Removed outdated comments and documentation related to the old feature
flag system.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
---------
Co-authored-by: Nilesh Sarupriya <20905988+nsarupr@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Abhijeet <abhi.nagarnaik@gmail.com>
## Description
This pull request includes several fixes and improvements to the
codebase. Here is a summary of the changes:
- Improved searchability and tag visibility for the application.
- Disabled the public and forkable switches in ApplicationSettings.
- Refactored the CommunityTemplateForm to use the defaultPageId.
- Added a new event, COMMUNITY_TEMPLATE_PUBLISHED.
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes#29165
#### Type of change
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
## Testing
>
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [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
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai
-->
## Summary by CodeRabbit
- **New Features**
- Introduced the ability to publish community templates with enhanced
settings for visibility and collaboration.
- Added new analytics event tracking for community template publication.
- **Enhancements**
- Improved the search functionality in the template selection with
responsive tag count and search feature.
- Enhanced application settings with the ability to disable switches for
public and forkable options.
- **Documentation**
- Updated instructions for triaging new changes and features.
- **Refactor**
- Simplified logic for determining default page ID in the template
publishing form.
- **Tests**
- Extended unit tests to cover new session user service functionality.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
Also modifying server-build to store the failed builds as an artifact that can be used later
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai
-->
## Summary by CodeRabbit
- **New Features**
- Implemented a new step in the build process to upload reports for
failed tests, enhancing visibility into test failures during continuous
integration.
- **Bug Fixes**
- Adjusted test assertions in `AnalyticsServiceCEImplTest` to correctly
reflect the expected behavior.
- Modified the assertion logic in `ApplicationServiceCETest` to ensure
the test aligns with the intended application validation process.
- **Documentation**
- No user-facing documentation changes in this release.
- **Refactor**
- Introduced `TestResultLoggerExtension` to improve test failure logging
and reporting.
- **Tests**
- Enabled auto-detection of JUnit Jupiter extensions to streamline the
testing framework setup.
- **Chores**
- No significant chores affecting end-users in this release.
- **Revert**
- No reverts in this release.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
### Description
As per updated homepage experience search functionality will be handled
by server and will be applicable for all the entities present on
homepage.
Request format:
```
curl --location 'https://dev.appsmith.com/api/v1/search-entities?keyword=test&page=0&size=10&entities={comma separated entity names e.g.Application,Workspace}' \
--header 'Cookie: SESSION={logged_in_user's_session_cookie}'
```
Note: We will be running a couple of experiment to optimise the search,
with this PR we have implemented basic search with contains
functionality and index is applied on the searchable fields. Mongo does
offer [text-search
functionality](https://www.mongodb.com/docs/manual/text-search/) based
on tokenisation which may tackle the incorrect spellings scenario. But
as the searches are for names we have avoided that route for now as
language tokenisation was not providing the expected results which basic
search was able to.
Design handoff:
https://app.zeplin.io/project/653f7de4c1d563203f817bce/screen/653f7eea5d02e7233ede382c
<img width="1095" alt="Screenshot 2023-12-07 at 3 09 02 AM"
src="https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/assets/41686026/c26225ef-9d78-4969-b445-a78bc58c18a0">
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/28793
#### Type of change
- New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
## Testing
>
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [x] Manual
- [x] 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 a new search functionality that allows users to find and
sort applications and workspaces.
- Added the ability to view recently used applications in a sorted
order.
- **Improvements**
- Enhanced the application sorting mechanism to prioritize recently used
items.
- Streamlined the process of checking if an application is connected to
Git.
- **Bug Fixes**
- Fixed an issue where the list of applications was not updating
correctly for recently used items.
- **Deprecated Features**
- Marked the `getAllApplicationsForHome` method as deprecated.
- **Tests**
- Added new test cases to ensure the reliability of the search and
sorting features.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
## Description
> Now moustache binding in Rest API and Graph QL are back.
- We can now add moustache binding the datasource in these plugins.
- Note that these are enabled only for Header section of the above
mentioned plugins
This is a temporary fix and we will move away from this once we have a
better solution implemented
Fixes: https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/25537
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai
-->
## Summary by CodeRabbit
- **New Features**
- Enhanced datasource management with asynchronous key extraction for
improved performance.
- Introduced new methods for retrieving binding tokens, aiding in better
datasource storage handling.
- **Refactor**
- Transitioned several methods to asynchronous processing to align with
reactive programming practices.
- **Tests**
- Added new test cases to ensure the correct behavior of actions with
various datasource types and moustache bindings.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
## Description
If an application has a custom js library set, it's not available in
view mode right after importing the application from git. User need to
add a commit to make it available in Git. This PR performs a publish
application operation right after git import so that any resource
available in edit mode is also available in view mode.
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes#29278
#### Media
#### Type of change
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
## Testing
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [ ] Manual
- [ ] JUnit
#### Test Plan
#### Issues raised during DP testing
## 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
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai
-->
## Summary by CodeRabbit
- **New Features**
- Applications can now be automatically published after being imported
from Git.
- **Tests**
- Updated tests to include new assertions for verifying the behavior of
unpublished custom JavaScript libraries.
<!-- 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**
- Enhanced search capabilities with a new search bar for improved user
experience.
- Introduction of a context-specific feature to streamline action
collections based on user context.
- Asynchronous processing enhancements for action and page publishing
workflows.
- **Improvements**
- Streamlined creation and validation process for action collections.
- Refined action domain generation and default resource updates for
actions.
- Optimized validation logic for action creation, removing unnecessary
checks.
- **Bug Fixes**
- Fixed issues with action collection creation and validation logic.
- Addressed validation logic in action collections to ensure proper
error handling.
- **Refactor**
- Codebase refactoring for better maintainability and performance.
- Refactored action creation to delegate responsibilities, improving
code clarity.
- **Documentation**
- Updated documentation to reflect new features and improvements.
- **Tests**
- Extended test suites to cover new functionality and changes in the
application logic.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
## Description
As per updated homepage experience we are segregating the workspaces,
applications and members API. This PR adds the GET applications for the
user with at least read permission. As this will be consumed on the
homepage API should also filter out the non-default branched
applications if connected to git.
Request format:
```
curl --location 'https://dev.appsmith.com/api/v1/workspaces/home' \
--header 'Cookie: <logged_in_user_cookie>'
curl --location 'https://dev.appsmith.com/api/v1/applications/home?workspaceId=<workspace_id>' \
--header 'Cookie: <logged_in_user_cookie>'
```
## Summary by CodeRabbit
- **New Features**
- Introduced a new method for fetching applications by workspace ID in a
recently used order.
- Added functionality to retrieve user workspaces based on recent usage.
- **Enhancements**
- Improved application sorting to prioritize recently used items.
- Enhanced user data model to include recently used entities for better
user experience.
- **Bug Fixes**
- Fixed issues with updating the last used applications and workspaces.
- **Documentation**
- Marked older methods as deprecated in favor of new implementations.
- **Refactor**
- Refactored services to use `WorkspaceService` instead of
`WorkspaceRepository`.
- Updated constructors to include new service dependencies for
`UserDataService`.
- **Tests**
- Added new test cases to ensure correct behavior of recently used
entities sorting.
- Modified existing tests to accommodate changes in user data handling.
- **Deprecations**
- Deprecated older methods and fields related to recently used
workspaces and applications.
- **Chores**
- Performed code cleanup and removed unused imports.
Designs:
https://app.zeplin.io/project/653f7de4c1d563203f817bce/screen/653f7eeda2060c2345cf431f
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/28791,
https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/28792
#### 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
- [x] Manual
- [x] 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
- [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
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai
-->
## Summary by CodeRabbit
- **New Features**
- Search functionality now available with a new search bar at the top of
the home page.
- Users can now sort applications and workspaces by recent usage.
- Added a new method to fetch applications by workspace ID in recently
used order.
- **Enhancements**
- Improved user experience by sorting applications and workspaces based
on recent interactions.
- Streamlined workspace retrieval to prioritize recently used
workspaces.
- **Bug Fixes**
- Addressed issues with application sorting to reflect recent usage
accurately.
- **Deprecated**
- Deprecated methods related to old application sorting logic.
- **Documentation**
- Updated method comments to reflect new sorting logic.
- **Refactor**
- Refactored application and workspace services to use new recently used
sorting logic.
- **Tests**
- Added new tests to ensure correct sorting of applications and
workspaces.
- Enhanced existing tests to accommodate new recently used entities
logic.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
## Description
File lock was not handled properly in In git status and fetch API. As a
result, when the get status and fetch APIs are called in parallel, the
lock file error is thrown. This PR fixes the issue.
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes#29260
#### 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?
- [x] Manual
- [x] 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
- [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
- **New Features**
- Enhanced the Git integration to support file locking during branch
checkout operations, ensuring better concurrency management.
- **Bug Fixes**
- Resolved issues related to branch checkout by introducing additional
checks and operations to maintain consistency and prevent conflicts.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
## Description
Renaming a JS object in child branch fails because the get action
collections by pageId and branch name returns empty list. This PR fixes
this problem.
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes#28766#29131
## Description
1. Shifts DSL migration logic to @shared/dsl
2. Exposes /migrate/dsl endpoint on rts
3. Integrates RTS endpoint to backend for serving migrated pages
4. Introduces feature flag to switch between client-based and
server-based on-demand migration
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes#26783, #26784, #26980
#### 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
- [x] Manual
- [ ] JUnit
- [x] 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
---------
Co-authored-by: Nayan <nayan@appsmith.com>
## Description
This PR adds junit test case to ensure that whenever there is
appsmithPluginException on server, we never expose the plugin status
code directly, instead we use generic 500 internal server error. The
actual plugin status code is visible inside `response.status`.
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes#29037
#### 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
- [x] 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
- [x] 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
When the templates endpoint on cloud services is not reachable from the
platform, toasts with a generic error message appear. The messaging
needs to be improved to indicate that this owing to the templates (or
any other relevant endpoint) on cloud services.
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/23196
#### Type of change
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
## Testing
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [ ] Manual
- [ ] JUnit
#### 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
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/15921
#### 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
The list of protected branches should be reset when user downgrades from
EE to CE
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes#28734
#### Media
#### Type of change
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
## Testing
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [x] Manual
- [x] JUnit
#### Test Plan
#### Issues raised during DP testing
## 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
> Adding logs to test cases.
#### 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
- 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
---------
Co-authored-by: Nilesh Sarupriya <20905988+nsarupr@users.noreply.github.com>
## Description
This PR makes the update branch protection API transactional.
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes#28648
#### Media
#### Type of change
- Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception)
## Testing
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [ ] JUnit
#### Test Plan
#### 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
This PR makes the permission check optional for the Fork App flow - The
one which are marked as forkable or community apps
This also adds error message if the Fork App flow fails due to
permission issues
Added a few changes to optimise the db calls
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/27509
#### Type of change
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
## Testing
- [x] Manual
- [x] JUnit
## 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
- Adds server endpoints for getting and setting protected branches
- Adds protected canvas view for branch protection
- Adds default branch and protected branch in git modal settings
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes#28434, #28056
#### Media
Protected View -
<img width="1728" alt="image"
src="https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/assets/8724051/4fb26450-61e1-4fc0-a66d-0ebaa28ff90c">
Branch Protection Settings -
<img width="1728" alt="image"
src="https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/assets/8724051/fb6d16b6-0a3c-42fd-be1a-9b3677048663">
#### 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
---------
Co-authored-by: Nayan <nayan@appsmith.com>
## Description
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/28563
#### Type of change
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
## Testing
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [ ] Manual
- [ ] JUnit
#### Test Plan
#### 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
---------
Co-authored-by: manish kumar <manish@appsmith.com>
## Description
> Fix email templates and subjects.
> Related EE PR: https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith-ee/pull/2791
#### 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
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
## Testing
>
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [x] Manual
Manual testing done on the DP: ee-2787
#### 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
Co-authored-by: Nilesh Sarupriya <20905988+nsarupr@users.noreply.github.com>
## Description
This PR adds rate limiting on connection creations. Connections with
datasources are created in following situations:
- Whenever a query is executed, we create connection to datasource
- Whenever datasource structure is fetched
- Whenever trigger API is called in case of generate CRUD
In all above cases, if connection is successful, its context is saved in
cache, but when the connection is unsuccessful, connection context is
not saved in cache and connection creation is initiated every time. In
such case, we need to apply rate limiting on connection creation, so
that no brute force attacks can happen.
The code in this PR is written with the assumption that every time
connection creation fails, each plugin throws an error, whenever we get
this error, we consume token from bucket, if we exhaust this bucket, we
block this IP for next 5 minutes. This error is thrown in following
plugins:
- Postgres
- Oracle
- Redshift
- MsSQL
Other plugins like MySQL, SMTP, Elastic Search, ArangoDB, Redis, No such
error is thrown, which can be caught and rate limiting applied, hence
creating a different task to handle for these plugins. check #28259
Junit test cases will be covered in #27742
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes#27738 , #27740
> 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
- New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
>
>
>
## Testing
>
#### How Has This Been Tested?
> Please describe the tests that you ran to verify your changes. Also
list any relevant details for your test configuration.
> Delete anything that is not relevant
- [x] Manual
- [ ] 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: “sneha122” <“sneha@appsmith.com”>
## Description
> PR to support partial import changes
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes#28223
#### Type of change
- New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
## Testing
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [ ] 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
- [x] 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
- [x] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after Cypress tests were reviewed
- [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after JUnit tests were reviewed
## Description
Add support for java Instant new Java8 Date API datatype modules in
Jackson.
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/28350
#### Type of change
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
## Testing
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [ ] Manual
- [ ] JUnit
## 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
Fixes the bug when import app from file fails when target workspace has
existing app with same name and multiple branches.
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes#28122
#### Media
https://www.loom.com/share/5d31f58574f5422ba078e4153e39bf8c
#### Type of change
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
## Testing
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [x] Manual
- [x] JUnit
#### Test Plan
#### Issues raised during DP testing
## 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
> Set the correct lastModifiedBy when application or it's resources are
updated.
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/26120
#### 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?
- [ ] Manual
- [x] 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
- [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
Co-authored-by: Nilesh Sarupriya <20905988+nsarupr@users.noreply.github.com>
## Description
API to support Partial Export of resources with in a page
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes#27481
#### Type of change
- New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
## Testing
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [ ] Manual
- [ ] JUnit
#### 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
> Fix error message thrown when permission group is not found.
#### 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
- 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
---------
Co-authored-by: Nilesh Sarupriya <20905988+nsarupr@users.noreply.github.com>
## Description
Contains the changes to remove fast-xml-parserV3.17.5 as a default
library and migrate all existing apps to install it as a custom JS
library on page load. Installations no longer fail when there is a
naming collision, we determine a unique accessor that can work inside
the application both for UMD & ESM builds.
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith-ee/issues/2562
Fixes https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith-ee/issues/2563
Fixes https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith-ee/issues/2073
Fixes https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith-ee/issues/2403
#### Type of change
- Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception)
>
## Testing
>
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [x] Manual
- [x] JUnit
- [x] Jest
- [x] Cypress
>
>
#### Test Plan
https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/issues/2536
Scenarios for existing apps will be tested post-merge since DP's are
created with fresh DB that don't have release data
>
>
#### Issues raised during DP testing
https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/28012#issuecomment-1767711382
response:
https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/28012#issuecomment-1767781029
>
>
>
## Checklist:
#### Dev activity
- [x] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] My changes generate no new warnings
- [x] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [x] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag
#### QA activity:
- [x] [Speedbreak
features](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/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
- [x] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after Cypress tests were reviewed
- [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after JUnit tests were reviewed
---------
Co-authored-by: manish kumar <manish@appsmith.com>
Co-authored-by: Manish Kumar <107841575+sondermanish@users.noreply.github.com>
## Description
This PR checks whether user has permission to create and application in
a workspace before doing git operations - Git connect and disconnect
from Git.
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes#26878
## Description
> This PR only sets the sensitive fields in datasource reconnection
modal as null.
Ref:
https://www.notion.so/Datasource-Configuration-on-Exporting-App-924d18f1b0ec4451a482bc41d7271721
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes#20545
#### Type of change
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
## Testing
>
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [x] Manual
- [x] JUnit
#### 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
> ApplicationServiceCETest is flaky in the setup, so breaking down the
setup into multiple steps to pinpoint the failure.
#### Type of change
- Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception)
## 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
Co-authored-by: Nilesh Sarupriya <20905988+nsarupr@users.noreply.github.com>
## Description
> With the current workflow for inviting users to workspace, we are not
filtering out duplicate emails. With this code change, we intend to only
invite unique users to workspace.
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/28067
#### 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
---------
Co-authored-by: Nilesh Sarupriya <20905988+nsarupr@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Ankita Kinger <ankita@appsmith.com>
## Description
> Rest Api used cached datasourceContext which was providing older
tokens. Now when we look for datasourceContext we provide a new context.
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes#27699
#### Type of change
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [ ] Manual
## 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 adds rate limiting functionality to datasource test API. The
rate limiting configuration is added in such a way that if test API
receives more than 3 failed authentication requests for the same host
name within 5 seconds, It will block this hostname for the next 5
minutes, so that brute force attack can be stopped.
Unit test for this will be covered in another PR. Refer #27742
Currently this PR covers for postgres only, will need to extend the
implementation for all plugins. Refer #27737
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes#27736, #27739, #27744
> 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
- 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
- [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
---------
Co-authored-by: “sneha122” <“sneha@appsmith.com”>
## Description
In this code change, a separate loop has been introduced to handle the
removal of specific flags from a map to avoid encountering a
`ConcurrentModificationException` that can occur when attempting to
remove an entry from a map while iterating over it directly. This new
loop iterates through a collection of `featureFlagsToBeRemoved`,
removing each corresponding flag from the mentioned maps, ensuring safe
removal without disrupting the ongoing iteration process.
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith-ee/issues/2608
#### Type of change
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
## Testing
>
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [x] Manual
- [x] JUnit
- [ ] Jest
- [ ] 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
- [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
> 1-click refactor for GAC
> https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith-ee/pull/2294
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/27075
#### 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
> 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
---------
Co-authored-by: Nilesh Sarupriya <20905988+nsarupr@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Trisha Anand <trisha@appsmith.com>
## Description
PAC configuration service related CE changes
#### Type of change
- Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception)
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [x] JUnit
## 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
- [x] 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
> When the new branding tenant configuration is applied, we invoke the
method `copyNestedNonNullProperties` which accepts a source and the
target object and copies the non null key-value pairs from source to the
target object. Due to this common utility method which calls the getter
method of the fields in source object, if the getter method is
overloaded to return False instead of Null, it copies the false value to
the target object.
> This PR fixes the getter method to only return the default null value
if not present instead of defaulting it to false.
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes#27783
#### 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)
>
## 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
- [ ] 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
## Description
This fixes the NPE when the user is trying to import an application JSON
that has no action collection.
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes#27646
#### Media
N/A
#### Type of change
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
## Testing
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [x] Manual
- [ ] JUnit
- [ ] Jest
- [ ] Cypress
>
#### Test Plan
#### Issues raised during DP testing
## 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
## Description
> Move the clone/fork/publish permission checks to CE.
#### 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
- 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
---------
Co-authored-by: Nilesh Sarupriya <20905988+nsarupr@users.noreply.github.com>
## Description
This PR fixes discrepancy in mixpanel event numbers for anonymous CE
users. For self hosted instances, in mixpanel funnel, number of Execute
Action backend events was much lesser compared to corresponding frontend
events, Also much lesser when compared to corresponding cloud numbers.
**Root cause of issue**:
Issue was not because events were not getting triggered for CE for
anonymous users, but issue was with the distinct Id which is assigned to
each event on mixpanel. This distinct ID is based on the username, In
case of logged in users, it simply gets username and uses that as
distinct ID, in case of anonymous users:
- for cloud users, it sets this userId as anonymousUser which then the
segment library evaluates to the value of X-Anonymous-User-Id header,
this value is a unique UUID, hence we get unique distinct ID for all
anonymous cloud users
- for self hosted instance, since we hash all the values, this
anonymousUser username gets hashed to
68385f9726ad05c8e551a8d5be5cd8213f1e733346a9eb00e86f83df94639555 this
value and the segment library considers this as a valid id and assigns
it to distinct id, hence for all self hosted instances, irrespective of
their device or instance id, distinct id stays the same
Hence it would club all such anonymous events into a single unique event
for CE, thus giving lesser number in the funnel.
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes#27221
> 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
- [ ] 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: “sneha122” <“sneha@appsmith.com”>
## Description
> Queries using aggregation update failing. hence added a fallback.
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes#26090
Fixes https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith-ee/issues/1659
#### Type of change
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
## Testing
>
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [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
- [ ] 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
In git connected applications, if user renames a page, their queries are
not pushed to git for that page.
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes#27508
This reverts commit 66d5027126.
> 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
## Description
Refactor the branch protection check to a utility class as part of 1
click upgrade
#### 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
- [ ] JUnit
>
>
#### 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
While running the feature based migrations, updates are being made to
the tenant object. As we are using the `repository.save` method it
resulted in deserialising the tenant object from Spring giving the diff
between the DB object and the object received by the downstream methods
as we are overriding the tenant config object. To avoid this we are now
retrieving the object explicitly after the object is saved to DB.
Note: This needs to be looked after as it's increasing the DB calls.
Create a ticket for tracking this request
https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith-ee/issues/2386
EE PR: https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith-ee/pull/2375
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith-ee/issues/2361
#### Type of change
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
## Testing
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [x] Manual
- [x] 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
- [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
This PR adds check for handling the branch protection rules before
performing the git commit, pull and delete ops. This is fall back for CE
behaviour. This is paid feature and to keep the downgrade experience
smoother, this change set is added.
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes#26877
#### Type of change
- New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
## Testing
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [ ] Manual
- [ ] JUnit
#### 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
Fixes https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/26768
#### Type of change
- New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
## Testing
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [ ] 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
update email sending flow for inviting users to workspace and forgot
password with new templates
fixes: https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/19462
code changes:
**new code**
* introduces new EmailService
**refactoring**
* moves all email sending flows to the new email service
* moves all email constants and templates to the Email constants
**code deleted**
* removed code for welcome email invite
…ong as the role is directly assigned to the user (#27129)"
This reverts commit cfc91d16d0.
> 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
## Description
Add API to publish community template
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
#26242
#### Type of change
- New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
## Testing
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [X] Manual
- [x] 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 refactors the code related to list of branches and default
branch. It separates different parts of the code into separate
functions.
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes#26875
## Description
PR provides a fallback mechanism utilising tenant-level flags to
determine feature support in scenarios where user context is
unavailable.
#### 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
- New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
## Testing
>
#### How Has This Been Tested?
> Please describe the tests that you ran to verify your changes. Also
list any relevant details for your test configuration.
> Delete anything that is not relevant
- [x] Manual
- [x] 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
As a part of 1-click upgrade, some features needs the migrations before
users can start consuming it. As of today this is valid for SSO where
the user sessions should be disabled when the license plan downgrades
where custom SSO is not supported. This PR introduces the required
structure which covers:
- Adding the migration status to be consumed by the client
- Adding a list of feature flags which needs the migration
- A separate class to execute the migrations
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith-ee/issues/2229
Corresponding EE PR:
https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith-ee/pull/2141
#### Type of change
- New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
## Testing
>
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [x] Manual
- [x] 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
## Description
During git checkout to a remote branch, if the underlying application is
present in DB, the operation creates an extra application with name
"null". This PR fixes the issue.
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes#24614
#### 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?
- [x] Manual
- [x] JUnit
#### 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
> Queries using aggregation update failing. hence added a fallback.
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes#26090
Fixes https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith-ee/issues/1659
#### Type of change
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
## Testing
>
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [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
- [ ] 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
As per earlier implementation we were using the reflection to find out
the declared method in super class based on the feature flag status.
This PR fallback to Java inheritance structure to get the method instead
of specifically looking for the one within the class.
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/27065
#### 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
- [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
PR to code split git service testcases. On EE need to test following
functionality:
1. If the server is Appsmith cloud
2. For self hosted instances if the feature flag is enabled, does the
check for private repo limit getting bypassed correctly
## Description
As the CS URL is set to release in test env every run for JUnit
testcases corresponding entry was getting created on Flagsmith and
bloating the DB. This PR creates a mock layer for feature flag service
so as to completely block the external call.
Q: Why the Mockbean is not a suitable alternative here?
A: With the @FeatureFlagged we check if the feature flag is supported
for the user and decide where to run EE or CECompatible code. Also there
is a cron which gets triggered after 10sec to fetch the tenant level
features which again hit release CS to fetch the FF. This needs to be
implemented for all the test classes to avoid the external calls
completely.
This PR adds a mock service layer which activates only for the JUnit
testcases, so that in production or even while running cypress testsuite
we are going to run the `CacheableFeatureFlagHelper`.
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/26554
> 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.
- 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
- [x] 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
- [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
PR to add the fallback mechanism when a call to CS to fetch the feature
flags at tenant as well as user level fails for some reason. With this
PR once the feature flag response is received for the first time user
will never lose the access of the feature.
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith-ee/issues/2130
#### 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
- [x] Manual
- [x] 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
- [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
As we have started using the @FeatureFlagged for selectively calling the
methods from different classes based on the feature flag support, this
needs a valid user object to detect if the feature is supported for the
current user. This PR adds the api_user context for running the
testcases and also adds the mocking for FeatureFlagService which will be
used only in EE codebase, but added here to avoid any future merge
conflicts.
## Description
### Context
As a part of 1 click upgrade-downgrade project we're streamlining our
processes by delivering a unified image for both our business and
community users (We will still be building the CE image but in all our
communication EE image will be referred going forward). This change aims
to simplify the business trial experience, removing the complexities of
handling multiple image repositories. The user experience will be
tailored to the license key provided which decides the feature flag
values and provide a corresponding experience. This also means going
forward one can start the EE instance without needing to enter the
license key and will be presented with the CE equivalent experience.
### Change
With this PR we are bringing in a updated structure described in the
below image. This includes:
1. Introducing a new helper class i.e.`GitPrivateRepoHelper` which will
be used in EE codebase to provide a fallback when feature flag is not
supported.
Private repo helper class is only needed to get away with the limitation
of Spring AOP where methods which are self-invoked does not get
intercepted. We explored the self-injection but does not look like a
cleaner solution, more details can be found in
[this](https://www.baeldung.com/spring-self-injection) article.
<img width="1057" alt="Screenshot 2023-08-25 at 11 02 52 PM"
src="https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/assets/41686026/3e443be4-6184-41c2-9df7-e3ee915584ef">
#### _Note: As described in above image, we expect to create the CE
compatible version of EEImpl classes if there is a difference in the
experience between CE and feature disabled version of EE hence there is
no requirement of adding another class in this case._
Corresponding CE PR: https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/26665
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
#### 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
- [x] Manual
- [x] 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
- [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
Adds a setting for Admin Users to enable Email verification of users who
are signing up using "Form login" When enabled, it will send a
verification email to a user who is signing up on a tenant and only when
they verify (by clicking on the link in email) they will be allowed to
proceed to the rest of the sign up process.
Corresponding EE PR for the email template:
https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith-ee/pull/2153
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes#21387Fixes#25552
#### 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
- New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
- This change requires a documentation update
## Testing
>
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [x] Manual
- [x] Jest
- [x] Cypress
We have mocked server apis to respond with different states and tested
the ui on that change
#### Test Plan
https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/issues/2459
>
>
#### 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
- [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-)
- [x] 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>
## Description
> Update the tenant and send the complete configuration information
using `getTenantConfiguration()` once then update is done.
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/26589
#### 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?
- [x] Manual
- [x] JUnit
#### 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
---------
Co-authored-by: Nilesh Sarupriya <20905988+nsarupr@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Pawan Kumar <pawan.stardust@gmail.com>
## Description
When we introduced the tenant level flags, it's not been added in get
all flags for user instead we added these in the user data service to
get all the feature flags for user. As we are progressing with 1 click
upgrade-downgrade project to avoid future confusion around feature
flagging I was hoping to expose single method to get all the relevant
feature flags for user. This includes:
1. Local flags from ff4j
2. User level flags from Flagsmith
3. Tenant level flags from Flagsmith (These will be shared across the
userbase with same tenantId)
This PR unifies the flags with single method
`getAllFeatureFlagsForUser`.
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/26547
#### Type of change
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
## Testing
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [x] Manual
- [x] Junit
## 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
Fixed the git discard failure when there is a conflict between existing
datasource name and datasource from pulled version.
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes#25954
## Description
We are facing the cyclical dependecy issue with tenant service and
feature flag service on EE codebase. This is required to force update
feature flag whenever the tenant license is updated. This PR updates the
implementation to use tenantId reference in feature flag service to fix
the above mentioned issue.
Corresponding EE PR:
https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith-ee/pull/2090
#### Type of change
- Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception)
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [x] Manual
- [x] JUnit
## 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
> This PR moves the feature flagging tests to ce folder.
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes#26198
#### 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
- [ ] 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 refactors the import application code so that the global
variables are no more there. It also breaks down the code into small
functions.
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes#25662
## Description
This PR removes the differentiation between async and sync js functions
in Appsmith
- All JS functions can run on page load
- All JS functions can request confirmation before executing
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes#25176Fixes#25065Fixes#15560Fixes#15273Fixes#12639Fixes#14229Fixes#13888
### Latest DP
https://ce-25399.dp.appsmith.com/
### Performance
<img width="748" alt="Screenshot 2023-08-04 at 11 05 50"
src="https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/assets/46670083/580b2091-7ee7-4845-b7bf-ca76bc3e6c1f">
#### 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
- [x] Cypress
>
>
#### Test Plan
> https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/issues/2455
>
>
#### 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-)
- [x] Test plan has been peer reviewed by project stakeholders and other
QA members
- [x] Manually tested functionality on DP
- [x] We had an implementation alignment call with stakeholders post QA
Round 2
- [ ] 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: Nidhi <nidhi@appsmith.com>
## Description
This PR brings those changes:
1. Creates a new API to know whether there are any uncommitted changes
or not
2. Creates a new API to compare the local branch with remote
3. Adds an optional parameter to the status API so that we can skip the
git fetch
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes#24340
## Description
As of now the CS API does not have signature verification which can lead
to data tampering for CS API response. This PR adds the method to add
signature verification for CS API responses.
Corresponding PRs:
CS: https://github.com/appsmithorg/cloud-services/pull/1023
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes https://github.com/appsmithorg/cloud-services/issues/1037
#### Type of change
- New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
## Testing
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [ ] 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
- [ ] 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
Added features API to the instance for enabling and disabling features.
Also added tenant features to user feature flags API response
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith-ee/issues/1887
> 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
- [ ] 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 changes the code flow in get status API by running export app
and fetch remote operations in parallel. Goal of this change is to
improve the time taken in get status API.
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes#24649
## Description
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/24854
#### Type of change
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
## Testing
>
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [ ] Manual
#### Test Plan
#### 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 adds the code for explicitly publishing the nav settings and
app layout on importing from git, since the git repo only contains the
unpublished resources.
Fixes#25501
#### 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)
## Testing
>
#### How Has This Been Tested?
> Please describe the tests that you ran to verify your changes. Also
list any relevant details for your test configuration.
> Delete anything that is not relevant
- [x] Manual
- [x] 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
1. Changing the Maps API Key doesn't need restart anymore.
2. The `isRestartRequired` field in the response of updating env
settings, was being ignored. The client owns the decision of when to
restart (which is correct), so removed this from the server.
3. Write Maps API Key to the database, in the tenant configuration.
4. The Settings page for Maps Ke gets the current value from
`/tenant/current` response, and not `/admin/env`.
5. Removed `APPSMITH_GOOGLE_MAPS_API_KEY` from `/admin/env` response.
6. Tests.
DO NOT MERGE. Please only review/approve. This is expected to break EE
once it goes there, which I intend to solve alongside merging this.
Changing the Maps API Key will update it both in the tenant config in
the database, as well as in the `docker.env` file. This is predominantly
for backwards compatibility, and phased rollout. As part of a separate
PR, we'll have a migration that proactively copies the env variable
value to the database, and comment out the value in the `docker.env`
file. Then we can stop updating the `docker.env` file as well.
## New
## Old
---------
Co-authored-by: Ankita Kinger <ankita@appsmith.com>
## Description
> this Pr is regarding error handling when no DatasourceConfiguration is
found in datasourceStorage, now we are erroring out with error message
for no configuration found.
Fixes#25350
#### Type of change
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [ ] Manual
- [ ] Jest
- [ ] 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
- [ ] 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
## Description
> Need an api to vend out messages for users alerting them of breaking
changes in upcoming releases.
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes#23064
#### Type of change
- New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
## Testing
>
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [x] Manual
- [ ] Jest
- [ ] Cypress
>
>
#### Test Plan
> This should be tested using curl by hitting the api endpoint endpoint
without any context and get a message in return that was configured in a
config file.
## 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
- [ ] 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: Hetu Nandu <hetunandu@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Hetu Nandu <hetu@appsmith.com>
Feature implementations:
- Schema in the Api Right Side Pane;
- New Bindings UI, which is now a suggested widget;
- Feature walkthrough for the aforementioned two units only if you are a new user.
Only those users who have the flags `ab_ds_binding_enabled` and `ab_ds_schema_enabled` independently set to true can see the implementation described above.
https://www.notion.so/appsmith/Activation-60c64894f42d4cdcb92220c1dbc73802
## Description
This PR fixes the bug when custom themes are not duplicated when user
checks out to a new branch.
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes#21474
## Description
> This PR sets the default traits for the users in the same SDK call to
get features.
> This ensures the traits are present for all users and also the SDK
calls are contained.
Fixes#25159
#### 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
- New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
## Testing
>
#### How Has This Been Tested?
> Please describe the tests that you ran to verify your changes. Also
list any relevant details for your test configuration.
> Delete anything that is not relevant
- [x] Manual
- [x] 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
- [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
## Description
This PR fixes the TenantServiceCETest failure that happens on EE
codebase
#### 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
- [ ] 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 PR moved the License domain out of TenantConfiguration
#### 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
- [ ] 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
Co-authored-by: Aishwarya UR <aishwarya@appsmith.com>
## Description
> The git discard flow only discards the properties which were set in
the last commit. If the properties are not present in the application
json in the last commit and the user changes these properties to some
value and after that choose to discard, the changes are not overwritten
to null values.
> This happens because git uses a function `copyNestedNonNullProperties`
to overwrite the values to the last commit ones which ignores the
properties if those are null.
> This PR explicitly sets the null properties in the target json, so
that when the user discards the initially set null properties, these get
discarded.
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes#24920
#### 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)
## 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
- [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
## Description
Added LicensePlan to tenant to get details about the user's current plan
#### 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
- [x] JUnit
- [ ] 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
To measure the impact of query modules in Appsmith. We need to track the
time a user takes to edit a copied query. Today, we do not have a
mechanism to understand if a query in question is a copied query. To fix
this, the data model of the Query action needs to change to include the
`originalQueryId` if a query is, in fact, a copied query.
- [ ] When a query is first copied, there will be no `originalActionId`
in the action object. In this scenario, the client will populate the
`originalActionId` field and call the POST API to create the copied
query.
- [ ] If the query is already a copied query, the client will duplicate
the value of the `originalActionId` when calling the POST API to create
the copied query.
|POST|`/api/v1/actions`|
----------|------|
### [Related discussion on
Notion](https://www.notion.so/appsmith/Backend-dependency-for-modules-instrumentation-889462d461844745be0a2599c8555ca5)
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes#24734
#### 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
- [x] 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
- [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
> 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
- [ ] 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
---------
Co-authored-by: Abhinav Jha <abhinav@appsmith.com>
## Description
> Add skip to the queryAll method.
> This will allow us to skip the desired number of elements while
querying.
> Also added a protected method: getSystemGeneratedUserEmails.
> This method has been added so that it will now act as the source of
truth for the system generated emails, and can be overridden on EE repo
to add more of the same.
#### 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
- 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?
> Added a test case `testSkipAndLimitForUserRepo` in user repository,
which checks for the sorted elements which should be returned as part of
skipping elements.
#### 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
---------
Co-authored-by: Nilesh Sarupriya <20905988+nsarupr@users.noreply.github.com>
## Description
> This PR updates the old scheduler-based class variable feature
flagging cache to the user-based on demand Redis cache.
Fixes#24941
#### 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?
- [x] Manual
- [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
- [ ] 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
Simply refactors code to allow EE overrides.
#### Type of change
- Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception)
## Testing
Only needs existing cases to pass
- [x] JUnit
- [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
- [ ] 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
## Description
When we import an application from file for Git, file import, templates
and other features, we import the list of actions one by one. This leads
to transaction timeout and other performance issues when the application
has a large number of actions and action collections. This PR imports
the actions and action collections in bulk so that number of database
queries are significantly reduced.
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes#24419
## Description
PR to code split the Network utils class which is being used and
modified in both CE and EE repo. This will fix the merge conflicts we
were seeing recently for NetworkUtils class.
EE PR: https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith-ee/pull/1708
Fixes https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/24271
#### Type of change
- Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception)
## Testing
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [ ] 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
- [ ] 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
> Refactor the User creation workflow.
> Changes:
> - Changed the access of `addUserPolicies` to protected so that it can
be overridden in `UserServiceImpl.java`.
> - Added `addUserPoliciesAndSaveToRepo` which wraps around
`addUserPolicies` and then saves the updated user object to Database.
> - Removed a few debug logs, which were added earlier.
> - Updated the test case assertions in
`createNewUser_WhenEmailHasUpperCase_SavedInLowerCase` and
`createNewUserValid`
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes # (issue number)
#### Type of change
- Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception)
## Testing
> No testing required as we are widening the scope of a method.
## 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
---------
Co-authored-by: Nilesh Sarupriya <20905988+nsarupr@users.noreply.github.com>
## Description
> This PR integrates Flagsmith feature flagging into the Appsmith
codebase
> It also sets some default traits such as instance_id, tenant_id and
email/hashed email to the new and existing users
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes#24037
#### Type of change
- 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
- [ ] 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
- [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
---------
Co-authored-by: Hetu Nandu <hetunandu@gmail.com>
## Description
> TL;DR now returning empty datasourceStructure object instead of
Mono.empty, also added the analytics call back.
The issue has started in sentry because a snippet has recently been
added to expect some response from server, if the response is empty it
throws error
Fixes#23675
#### Type of change
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [x] Manual
- [x] Jest
- [ ] Cypress
## 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
After forking an application, the reconnect modal appears. In the
reconnect modal, it's not possible to reauthorize the google sheets
plugin. This PR fixes the problem.
#### 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
- [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
- [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
Have placed a more specific unique index on datasourceStorageStructure
collection. Applying the index wouldn't cause any problems because of
general uniqueness already existing.
> TLDR; changing the index for datasourceStorageStructure collection
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes#24628
#### Type of change
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [ ] Manual
#### Test Plan
> Add Testsmith test cases links that relate to 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
Added the execution time for the individual flows in the git ops -
commit and status. This data will be sued to analyse the time consumed
and improve the performance of these API's.
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/24312
#### 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?
- [ ] Manual
- [ ] Jest
- [ ] Cypress
#### 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
Updated the error message for rebase during the conflicts state
Fixes https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/24391
#### 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
- [ ] Manual
- [ ] Jest
- [ ] Cypress
#### 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
---------
Co-authored-by: Parthvi <80334441+Parthvi12@users.noreply.github.com>
## EnvironmentId field was not getting saved in
datasourceStorageStructure save call. refactored calls to accommodate
that.
> Draft pr for review. would be closed after test and review
## Description
This PR adds permission checks on individual resources as well. This
will allow the case when an user does not have access to all the pages
of an application but trying to update the application from JSON.
The permission checks for import-export are not centralized today. There
are a lot of if-else inside the function that is responsible for the
import-export. This PR removes the permission checks from the core
process and move them to the wrapper functions which invokes this
process.
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes#22821
## Description
Added the git rebase to the discard flow. This is to avoid the push
failure when due to branch protection rules.
Prev, it was discard and pull. This flow had above mentioned issue where
if the branch protection rule was present, then the local branch would
be in a bad state.
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/23989
#### Type of change
- New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [ ] 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
- [ ] 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)
- [ ] 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: brayn003 <rudra@appsmith.com>
Co-authored-by: Parthvi Goswami <parthvigoswami@Parthvis-MacBook-Pro.local>
## Description
> This is a utility code change for supporting Widget Level ACL in
Appsmith-EE.
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/23260
#### Type of change
- Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception)
## Testing
> A test case has been added to assert the user management role.
#### 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
---------
Co-authored-by: Nilesh Sarupriya <20905988+nsarupr@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Ankita Kinger <ankita@appsmith.com>
This PR fixes an issue that's triggered due to merge conflicts. We
accidentally removed the code from the restore snapshot service that
replaces the actual ids with default ids when application is connected
to git.
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes#22956
## Description
> This PR resets the `forkingEnabled` field when the application is
forked/cloned or imported in the newly created app.
Fixes#23584
#### Type of change
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
## Testing
>
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [x] JUnit
#### 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
This PR embeds the snapshot time with the response to get pages API so
that client does not need to trigger another API. It'll also help to get
rid of the 404 error for get snapshot API which floods our logs.
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes#23701
#### 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
- New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
## Testing
>
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [x] Manual
- [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/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
> A malformed body (multipart form) for the /execute endpoint leads to
an error on UI showing: "invalid parameter: executeActionDTO".
> This has now been changed in this pr to show error as: "The request
could not be understood by the server due to malformed syntax."
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes#23250 (partly)
#### 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
- [ ] Jest
- [ ] Cypress
>
>
#### Test Plan
> This can be tested by calling /execute endpoint with malformed form
data since replicating this issue using UI is unreliable. The UI in
general doesn't produce a malformed request body.
## 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
Starts to use the datasource storage collection to store configs moving
forward. WIP
---------
Co-authored-by: Manish Kumar <107841575+sondermanish@users.noreply.github.com>
## Description
Details are provided in the connected issue.
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes#23027
#### 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.
- [x] JUnit
#### 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've ended up with two services for import and export - one for file
import and another one for git import. The code is duplicated in both of
the services. This PR merges the services into a single one.
Fixes#22940
## Description
## Type of change
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Manual
- Jest
- Cypress
### Test Plan
> Add Testsmith test cases links that relate to this PR
### Issues raised during DP testing
> Link issues raised during DP testing for better visiblity and tracking
(copy link from comments dropped on this PR)
## Checklist:
### Dev activity
- [ ] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [ ] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [ ] My changes generate no new warnings
- [ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [ ] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag
### QA activity:
- [ ] Test plan has been approved by relevant developers
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by QA
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by either SDET or
manual QA
- [ ] Organized project review call with relevant stakeholders after
Round 1/2 of QA
- [ ] Added Test Plan Approved label after reveiwing all Cypress test
## Description
The restore snapshot API returns the Application object that was
restored. In current implementation, it returns pages with `_id` as the
`id`. This creates problem when the Application is Git connected because
no page will be found with the _id and branch name. This PR fixes this
problem by replacing the `id` with the `defaultPageId`.
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes#22956
## Description
This PR makes the Intercom consent flag true always for the cloud-hosted
version.
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes#23214
#### 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
- [x] JUnit
- [ ] 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
- [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
> 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
> TL;DR: Separating the DatasourceConfiguration as a new collection to
accommodate for environments
This PR adds services and models for DatasourceConfigurationStorage,
which will now hold the datasourceConfiguration previously held in
Datasource. Additionally, DatasourceConfigurationStorage will also hold
invalids and messages from the datasource. It's indexed on datasourceId
and environmentId.
This PR doesn't change the way Datasource consumes and keeps
datasourceConfiguration. This will be followed by other PR which will
change consumption of datasourceConfiguration into a transitory field
### Changes Made:
- Created DatasourceConfigurationStorage model with datasourceId,
environmentId, datasourceConfiguration, invalids, and messages fields.
- Created DatasourceConfigurationStorageRepository interface and
implementation for managing DatasourceConfigurationStorage in the
database.
- Added DatasourceConfigurationStorageService for performing CRUD
operations on DatasourceConfigurationStorage.
- TODO : Update DatasourceService to use
DatasourceConfigurationStorageService for managing
DatasourceConfigurationStorage.
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith-ee/issues/1339
#### Type of change
- Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception)
## Testing
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [x] Manual
- [ ] Jest
- [ ] Cypress
## 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)
- [ ] 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
When the token fetched from client credentials grant type in oauth2 is
expired, a request to the token endpoint is made to fetch a new token.
But sometimes the token endpoint fail. It can be intermittent failure, a
retry will fetch the desired token.
When the failure occurs, the datasource context mono goes into an error
state. As this mono is cached, all the subsequent authenticated api
calls from the user fetches the cached error mono resulting in failures
and thus the token endpoint is never retried.
For the fix, while checking if datasource context is valid, added the
check if its in a failed state. If yes, then the context will be
considered invalid.
Fixes#20538
## Type of change
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
## How Has This Been Tested
- 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
- [ ] 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
>TL;DR: Added suffix retry if name clashes on creating an application.
## Issue:
When multiple users are trying to create an app on a common
organization, the changes for newly added app is not real-time hence
there's a conflict on app name causing an error. This error asks user to
contact Appsmith support, but a simple page refresh loads the new app.
Issue: #7401
## Solution:
Added suffix retry if name clashes on creating an application. With this
change, the above issue will not happen and in case of name conflict new
application will be created with a suffix added in the name. E.g
UntitledApplication 1 (1).
## Changes:
1. Added retry suffix method in the ApplicationServiceCEImpl for name
clash only.
2. Renamed createDefault method to createDefaultApplication for better
readability.
3. Removed AppsmithError and AppsmithErrorCode. Not required with
current change.
4. Updated cloneApplicationDocument method in
ExamplesWorkspaceClonerCEImpl to directly call createDefaultApplication
with contains suffix retry logic.
5. Removed same retry suffix method which is used in
ExamplesWorkspaceClonerCEImpl. Not required.
6. Updated test case for this change.
Fixes#7401
## Type of change
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Manual : Tested by using backend api.
- JUnit
### 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:
- [ ] 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
### Issue:
Need to add userPermissions in response to newPages Api inside pages
array: These are the APIs
/v1/pages?applicationId={applicationId}&mode={mode} - Get method
/v1/pages/application/:applicationId - Get method
### Solution:
Added userPermissions in the response of the above APIs.
### Changes:
These are the changes done in the following file to add userPermission
in the newPage Api response
1. New FieldName added which is used in query
2. userPermission attribute added in PageNameIdDTO
3. userPermission coming from db set to response in NewPageServiceCEImpl
4. Test cases updated
Fix#21887
## How Has This Been Tested?
1. Manual testing through postman and UI
2. Junit
### 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:
- [ ] 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 adds a second layer validation to the basic mime type
validation that's in place which checks the file extension.
> If the `ImageIO.read()` library returns null for .png/.jpeg type
files, it indicates a corrupted file upload, hence it returns
VALIDATION_FAILURE.
Fixes#22592
## Type of change
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
## How Has This Been Tested?
- JUnit
## 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:
- [ ] 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: Anand Srinivasan <anand.a.srinivasan@outlook.com>
## Description
> This PR adds a validation regex for display name, it allows for
Accented characters such as (ä ö ü è ß) etc, and alphanumeric with some
special characters dot (.), apostrophe ('), hyphen (-) and spaces.
> It also allows for chinese characters, eg. 황현미
Fixes#22578
## Type of change
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
## How Has This Been Tested?
- JUnit
### 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:
- [ ] 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: Anand Srinivasan <anand.a.srinivasan@outlook.com>
This PR is a follow up to #22847 to make CRUD templates work again.
TODO:
- [x] Wait for #22847 to get merged and then uncomment generate CRUD
tests
- [ ] Test all generate CRUD flows
---------
Co-authored-by: Nikhil Nandagopal <nikhil.nandagopal@gmail.com>
## Description
This PR is a structural change to our database and introduces no change
in functionality.
Since generate CRUD functionality is controlled by an Appsmith app in
release env, this PR will end up breaking generate CRUD temporarily.
Fixes https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith-ee/issues/1336
## Type of change
- Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception)
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Manual
- Jest
### Test Plan
Available
[here](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1dP-x8b7gBFOfXtVBwr-A0I4M0nTiJmeysZO2ExI1Hhk/edit#gid=1966367141)
### 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
- [ ] 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
## Description
We recently introduced a way to update the existing application via JSON
import. We want this feature to be available for only non-git connected
application. This is to avoid feature duplication in Appsmith platform
as Git connected application can perform the backup and sync with git
pull, git merge etc.
Fixes https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/22832,
https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/22831
## Type of change
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
- New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Manual
- JUnit
## 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:
- [ ] 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
When a user wants to develop in an instance and deploy in another, the
only way to update an app is via Git. In scenarios where this is not
possible (either in Airgapped scenarios or due to the user's choice),
the user cannot update the deployed app. This PR allows a user to update
an existing app via JSON import. The original references will be
maintained where applicable
> TL;DR: Provide a way to update the existing application via JSON
import in situations where Git sync is not an option.
Fixes#22075
### How to test?
1. Create a new workspace `WS1`
2. Create new app
3. Generate CRUD page
4. Export the application
5. Create new workspace lets's call this as `WS2` and import the
exported app from step 4
6. Create another page `pageCreatedInWS2` in imported application in
`WS2`
7. Export the updated application from `WS2`
8. Update existing application created in step 2 in `WS1` by importing
the application which is exported from `WS2` in step 7
9. Updated application should have `pageCreatedInWS2` page
```
Curl for ref:
curl --location '{{base_url}}/api/v1/applications/import/{{workspaceId}}?applicationId={{applicationId}}' \
--header 'Cookie: SESSION={{cookieSessionId}}' \
--header 'X-Requested-By: Appsmith' \
--form 'file=@{{JSON_FILE_TO_IMPORT}}'
```
## Type of change
- New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
- This change requires a documentation update
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Manual
- JUnit
## 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:
- [ ] 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
Currently, we try to upload large files by converting their binaries
into strings which leads to bloat in size. This is because converting to
bytes in a multi-byte encoding usually takes a larger space and white
characters are also included. We were also doing multiple modifications
which were just adding to the bloat.
Hence, we are now converting the binary data into an array buffer to
prevent this. This buffer is added to the multi-part form data request
as a new part and we add a pointer in the pace of the data which used to
be present earlier. This allows us to have minimal bloat on the payload
while sending the request.
TLDR: fix for uploading large files by changing the data type used for
upload.
*TODO:*
- [x] Client side payload changes
- [x] Server side double escape logic fixes
- [x] Server side tests
- [x] Server side refactor
- [ ] Cypress tests
Fixes#20642
Media
## Type of change
- New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
## How Has This Been Tested?
- 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:
- [ ] 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: Nidhi Nair <nidhi@appsmith.com>
## Description
Currently, there is no way for us to know any details about a user when
they reach out to support via Intercom. Thus, we are not able to offer
the right level of support to them basis their current plan.
The idea is to ask for consent to share user details with Appsmith
before Intercom is enabled for a user, the basis which support can
determine the right level of support.
This PR helps to store and retrieve the flag variable for a particular
user which says whether the consent was given or not.
Fixes#22611
## Type of change
- New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Manual
- JUnit
## 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:
- [ ] 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
> Change the update workspace flow to update using the MongoTemplate
`updateFirst` rather than Repository `save`
Fixes # (issue)
> 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
- Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception)
## How Has This Been Tested?
> `testWorkspaceUpdate_checkAdditionalFieldsArePresentAfterUpdate`
### 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
---------
Co-authored-by: Nilesh Sarupriya <20905988+nsarupr@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Aishwarya UR <aishwarya@appsmith.com>
## Description
> This PR reverts the changes done in #22157
> Another PR will be raised post the blockers are fixed to create the
`forkWithConfiguration` field as this can impact the users forking their
apps directly.
Fixes#21691
## 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
## How Has This Been Tested?
> Please describe the tests that you ran to verify your changes. Provide
instructions, so we can reproduce.
> Please also list any relevant details for your test configuration.
> Delete anything that is not important
- Manual
- Jest
- Cypress
### Test Plan
> Add Testsmith test cases links that relate to this PR
### Issues raised during DP testing
> Link issues raised during DP testing for better visiblity and tracking
(copy link from comments dropped on this PR)
## Checklist:
### Dev activity
- [ ] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [ ] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [ ] My changes generate no new warnings
- [ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [ ] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag
### QA activity:
- [ ] Test plan has been approved by relevant developers
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by QA
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by either SDET or
manual QA
- [ ] Organized project review call with relevant stakeholders after
Round 1/2 of QA
- [ ] Added Test Plan Approved label after reveiwing all Cypress test
## Description
For air gap instances, public internet will be restricted and as a
result, cron jobs that depend on cloud-services won't be supported. As a
part of this, the current PR creates a helper class to have a custom
implementation on the EE repo.
Corresponding EE PR:
https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith-ee/pull/1252Fixes#21522#21521#21882
## Type of change
- New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
## How Has This Been Tested?
- 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
- [ ] 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
This PR sets the `Public` as default view class for JsonView. It'll be
overridden if the controller has it's another view set. This will
prevent any accidental case when JsonView annotation is missing.
Fixes#21948
## Description
> This PR removes applicationDetail initialisation for empty object from
the publish application method.
> Due to the initialisation while publishing, git was detecting some
changes in the application json and only these two fields were getting
set in a separate commit.
> With this fix, these fields will be set only when a user explicitly
sets these properties.
Fixes#21727
## Type of change
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
## How Has This Been Tested?
- JUnit
### 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
> This is a helper PR which contains the following changes:
> - Remove Appsmith Roles: `APPLICATION_DEVELOPER`/ `APPLICATION_VIEWER`
> - `PolicyGenerator.getChildPermissions`: Get all hierarechical
permissions for an entity, given a permission.
> - Deprecate `permissions` data member in `PermissionGroup.java`
> - Refactor `MemberInfoDTO.java` to hold multiple roles.
> - Split `PermissionGroupInfoDTO.java`
> - `TextUtils. generateDefaultRoleNameForResource(String roleType,
String resourceName)` added
Fixes https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/20719
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)
## How Has This Been Tested?
> The existing test cases should pass and the newer test cases have been
written in the EE PR
### 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:
- [ ] 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: Nilesh Sarupriya <20905988+nsarupr@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Ankita Kinger <ankita@appsmith.com>
## Description
When data integrity is violated in the case of `DuplicateKeyException`
sensitive information like Appsmith URI is exposed to error messages.
This is a big security risk that needs to be fixed and any error message
shouldn't display Appsmith server credentials.
[RCA](https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/21568#issuecomment-1475746719)
[Slack
Thread](https://theappsmith.slack.com/archives/C0423TJFUJK/p1679082313650259)
Fixes#21568
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)
- Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception)
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Manual
- JUnit
### 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:
- [ ] 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>
## Description
File picker implementation for Limiting Gsheet Access requires google
sheet project id. The changes in this PR gets the gsheet project id from
cloud-services and returns it back to client. Client then uses this
project id to open file picker and select required files.
Fixes https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/21298,
https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/21362
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)
## How Has This Been Tested?
- 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
- [ ] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [x] 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: “sneha122” <“sneha@appsmith.com”>
In summary, the change comprises adding `JsonView` annotations on
domain/model fields, controller methods, and arguments.
applying JsonView annotation on controller methods will include fields
which are marked with the same view in domain objects.
Similarly, usage on controller method arguments will only deserialize
the fields which are marked with same view in Domain object, which is
helpful in case we don't want the client to send some fields for
security reasons.
This change replaces the previous use of JsonIgnore for restricting
fields in API response and allows for more flexibility and will enable
us to have fine-grain control over fields serialized for different
contexts, such as API response, export, and import.
The following views are defined as of now.
`View.Internal` - View used to serialize for internal use. It inherits
from `Views.Public` and `Views.Export`, so it will also include those
fields.
`Views.Public` - View used for API request/response.
`Views.Export` - View used for making field exportable, like in the case
of Git sync and file export.
Also, we can define more views by adding an interface inside the Views
class and Views can also inherit fields marked with different view by
simple interface inheritance.
A small tutorial on JsonView - [Jackson JSON Views |
Baeldung](https://www.baeldung.com/jackson-json-view-annotation)
---------
Signed-off-by: Sidhant Goel <sidhant@appsmith.com>
Co-authored-by: Aishwarya UR <aishwarya@appsmith.com>
Co-authored-by: Nayan <nayan@appsmith.com>
## Description
> add utility to check if a permission is for an entity
Fixes # (issue)
> 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
- Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception)
## How Has This Been Tested?
> `testIsPermissionForEntity`
### 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
---------
Co-authored-by: Nilesh Sarupriya <20905988+nsarupr@users.noreply.github.com>
## Description
This PR refactors the discard flow by removing the Pull flow. It'll only
discard local changes and revert to the last committed version.
Fixes#20622
> if no issue exists, please create an issue and ask the maintainers
about this first
## Description
Added and updated tests for the leave workspace flow.
Fixes # (issue)
> 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
## How Has This Been Tested?
> Please describe the tests that you ran to verify your changes. Provide
instructions, so we can reproduce.
> Please also list any relevant details for your test configuration.
> Delete anything that is not important
- Manual
- Jest
- Cypress
### Test Plan
> Add Testsmith test cases links that relate to this PR
### Issues raised during DP testing
> Link issues raised during DP testing for better visiblity and tracking
(copy link from comments dropped on this PR)
## Checklist:
### Dev activity
- [ ] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [ ] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [ ] My changes generate no new warnings
- [ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [ ] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag
### QA activity:
- [ ] Test plan has been approved by relevant developers
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by QA
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by either SDET or
manual QA
- [ ] Organized project review call with relevant stakeholders after
Round 1/2 of QA
- [ ] Added Test Plan Approved label after reveiwing all Cypress test
---------
Co-authored-by: Nilesh Sarupriya <nilesh@appsmith.com>
Co-authored-by: Nilesh Sarupriya <20905988+nsarupr@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: nilansh <nilansh@appsmith.com>
## Description
> This PR refactors the backend code and the `Application` model to
accumulate the newly added published and unpublished fields into
`ApplicationDetail`
Fixes#19280
## 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
## 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:
- [ ] 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
When an application is cloned, it's not published. As a result if the
user tries to open the new application in view mode, it throws error.
This PR fixes it.
Fixes#21309
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)
## How Has This Been Tested?
> Please describe the tests that you ran to verify your changes. Provide
instructions, so we can reproduce.
> Please also list any relevant details for your test configuration.
> Delete anything that is not important
- Manual
- JUnit test
### 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:
- [ ] 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 fixes the flaky test
`publishApplication_withPageIconSet_success` by maintaining the page
order of the application pages
Fixes#21220
## Type of change
- Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception)
## How Has This Been Tested?
- JUnit
## 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
- [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
This PR adds the option to delete an application snapshot in the
following cases:
- A DELETE API that'll delete an application snapshot
- The restore API should delete the underlying application snapshot if
the restore is successful
Fixes#21215
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.
- Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception)
## How Has This Been Tested?
> Please describe the tests that you ran to verify your changes. Provide
instructions, so we can reproduce.
> Please also list any relevant details for your test configuration.
> Delete anything that is not important
- Manual
- JUnit tests
### 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:
- [ ] 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
We need an API to update multiple page layouts with a single request.
For the mobile responsiveness project, the client migrates an existing
app from fixed layout to auto layout. After the migration is done, it
needs to send the updated layout one by one. With this new API, the
client needs to make a single API call to update all the layouts.
Fixes#21104
## Description
This PR adds a way to take a snapshot of an application on the database.
That snapshot can be restored to the application.
Under the hood it uses the Export-Import feature.
Fixes#19720
## Description
> Migrate the Default Workspace Id field in Permission Group to a
combination of Default Domain Id and Default Domain Reference field.
Fixes https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/20500
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)
## How Has This Been Tested?
> Tested manually
### 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:
- [ ] 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: Nilesh Sarupriya <20905988+nsarupr@users.noreply.github.com>
## Description
> In Enterprise edition, the environments will be created by default
when we create a new workspace.
However to facilitate those changes, and to keep code maintainable,
these snippets are neccesary.
> This PR has refactored workspace creation flow into separate methods
to
- allow addition of resourceIds in `permissionGroup` permissions in EE.
- added static method to reduce code repeatability
> This PR has changed some methods in workspaceServiceTest, those
methods were using same workspace object to create new workspaces when
called in a loop, however the workspace object used to create was
assigned id after first `workspaceService.create` call, the subsequent
create calls returned same workspace object, furthermore the linked
dependents were new each time causing problem.
As a fix, creating a new workspace object each time for create calls in
loop.
## TL;DR
> Refactor to facilitate the default environment creation PR in the EE
Fixes https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/20790
> This issue is a facilitator PR for [default environments with
workspace PR](https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith-ee/pull/1027).
## Type of change
- Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception)
## How Has This Been Tested?
- 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
- [ ] 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
## Description
This PR updates the error logs
- Establishing a consistent format for all error messages.
- Revising error titles and details for improved understanding.
- Compiling internal documentation of all error categories,
subcategories, and error descriptions.
Updated Error Interface:
https://www.notion.so/appsmith/Error-Interface-for-Plugin-Execution-Error-7b3f5323ba4c40bfad281ae717ccf79b
PRD:
https://www.notion.so/appsmith/PRD-Error-Handling-Framework-4ac9747057fd4105a9d52cb8b42f4452?pvs=4#008e9c79ff3c484abf0250a5416cf052
>TL;DR
Fixes #
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
- New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Manual
- Jest
- Cypress
### Test Plan
### Issues raised during DP testing
## 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
- [x] 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: subrata <subrata@appsmith.com>
## Description
> Add file locking using redis with retry. Helpful when multiple users
are trying to perform git actions in the Appsmith UI.
Fixes#10856Fixes#14366
## Type of change
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Test A
- Test B
## Checklist:
- [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
- [ ] 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
---------
Co-authored-by: Aishwarya UR <aishwarya@appsmith.com>
Co-authored-by: Sidhant Goel <sidhant@appsmith.com>
Co-authored-by: Parthvi Goswami <parthvigoswami@Parthvis-MacBook-Pro.local>
Co-authored-by: System Administrator <root@Parthvis-MacBook-Pro.local>
## Description
> We are working on usage and billing feature and as a part of usage
calculation, we are recording the usage pulses at 1 hr intervals today.
As the business cases are evolving we received a request to log the
pulses for every 5mins instead of an hour. Just to provide the existing
stats for the past month on our cloud alone we have received 155545
pulses with 1hr intervals between the pulses. Also going forward if are
doing it with 5mins intervals this count is going to increase by 12
folds. Now considering we will not be monetising the cloud platform
until multi-tenancy is out, do we have usecase where we still need the
usage data? If not we would like to stop recording these usage pulses on
Appsmith cloud and bring it back after multitenancy is live. Until then
self-hosted EE instances will report the pulses as expected.
> TL;DR: Remove logging of usage pulses for Appsmith cloud not to bloat
the cloud services DB, as these pulses will not be used unless the
multi-tenancy is introduced
Fixes https://github.com/appsmithorg/cloud-services/issues/400
## Type of change
- Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception)
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Manual
- JUnit
## 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
- [x] 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
Import application flow is a multi-stage process where we touch all the
mongo DB collections required to store the application in DB, which
today includes pages, actions, JSObjects, etc. When the flow is complete
then only we can say the application is successfully imported and DB
won't have any stale objects stored. But in a negative scenario where
the flow might break because of some unknown exceptions, objects stored
earlier become stale and reside in DB forever. With this PR we are
establishing the infra for transactions to avoid saving stale DB
objects. This is achieved by a rollback mechanism in case an exception
is thrown in the middle of execution.
Note: Since transactions are built on concepts of logical sessions they
require mecahnics (like oplog) which are only available in replica set
environment.
You can always convert a standalone to a single noded replica set and
transactions will work with this one node.
[https://docs.mongodb.com/manual/tutorial/convert-standalone-to-replica-set/](https://docs.mongodb.com/manual/tutorial/convert-standalone-to-replica-set/?_ga=2.53712296.1453502529.1669195955-2065030687.1664009965)
```
For local dev earlier we used to run the single node without replica set. Henceforth if we want to take the advantage of transactions please follow the steps to run mongod single node in local with replica set:
- Upgrade the MongoDB version to 4.4 or higher if it’s 4.2 or lower (https://www.mongodb.com/docs/manual/release-notes/4.4/#std-label-4.4-upgrade)
- Close the mongoDB instance running in your local
- Start the mongoDB in replica set mode and initiate the replica set
- mongod --port 27017 --dbpath <path/to/db> --replSet <replica-set-name> && mongo --eval “rs.initiate()”
- One can use following commands to check replica set status:
- mongo appsmith
- rs.status()
- By this time you should have the mongo running with replica set
```
<img width="1788" alt="Screenshot 2022-07-01 at 10 31 27 PM"
src="https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/41686026/176944386-f9d94715-c0cf-4900-93b7-f73647132d60.png">
This also means mongodb connection string used in env file will now
include the replica-set name if one wants to leverage transactions:
`mongodb://localhost:27017/appsmith?replicaSet={replica-set-name}`
Fixes https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/14543
## Type of change
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
- This change requires a documentation update
## How Has This Been Tested?
> JUnit
> Manual test
## Checklist:
- [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
- [ ] 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
---------
Co-authored-by: Anagh Hegde <anagh@appsmith.com>
Co-authored-by: Aishwarya UR <aishwarya@appsmith.com>
## Description
TL;DR: This PR introduces metrics logging using native Spring support
for Micrometer. It includes a docker-compose to set up all the required
parts of this observability stack in the local environment as well.
In order to make use of this stack, please navigate to
`utils/observability` and execute the following command:
```
docker-compose up -d
```
The set up comes bundled with a default Grafana dashboard that can be
accessed at localhost:3001. Please feel free to switch the mapping ports
around in the docker-compose file.
This dashboard currently shows all http requests (sampled at 0.1 by
default), and the server side implementation has introduced some minimal
tracing for the `/api/v1/action/execute` endpoint. This means that you
can use the trace id from http server requests for this endpoint to
delve deeper into the spans exposed in this flow.
In case you would like to send trace information to another service,
please make use of the `APPSMITH_TRACING_ENDPOINT` variable. To override
the default sampling rate in your local (to say, 1), you can set that as
the value for the variable `APPSMITH_SAMPLING_PROBABILITY`.
Fixes#19153
## Type of change
- Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception)
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Manual
### Test Plan
No testing required, only needs regression after merge.
## 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
---------
Co-authored-by: Sumesh Pradhan <sumesh@appsmith.com>
## Description
- TL; DR , small Pr to add environmentName to Datasource-controller for
`test`, `structure`, and `trigger` flows. In order to adapt for
environments. There is a method addition in authenticationValidator, and
further refactor to avoid code duplicity.
- With Introduction of multiple environments we would have
configurations corresponding to each environment. In order to test these
configurations, we would require an environment parameter to be passed
as an argument, this could be done by passing an environment header with
the current datasource `test`, `structure`, and `trigger` flows,
however, since our community and enterprise flow uses the same code. We
require our community code to include the header which however, will not
be used in the community edition but it will have complete usage in
enterprise edition.
- A `validateAuthentication` method in `authenticationValidator`
interface has been loaded with an extra parameter (environmentId) for
environment support, EE changes will follow post the merge.
- `Datasource trigger and Datasource Structure flows`, required some
refactors to make it work with environments as well.
## Type of change
- Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception)
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Manual
- Jest
- Cypress
Existing test cases are adequate, just tweaked a few test cases to
accommodate changes.
## 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:
- [ ] 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
The homepage API is used to load list of workspaces, apps under those
workspaces and their members. The list of members is used to display a
profile photo of the members. The client loads the profile picture using
the email address of the member. This can lead to 404 if the member has
no photo set.
This PR includes the photo ids in the response so that client knows
whether the user has photo or not. If photo is not set, client will not
try to load it. So the 404 responses will no more be there.
Fixes#20127
## Description
> This PR implements the backend APIs for updating icon to a Page.
Fixes#20199
## Type of change
- New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
## How Has This Been Tested?
- JUnit
- Postman
## 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
- [x] 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
- Feature flag API returns an empty response for public applications.
The API to fetch installed libraries was behind the custom JS library
feature flag and thus wasn't invoked. This PR removes all the references
to CUSTOM_JS_LIB feature flag in the code base.
- Add change to make Custom JS Lib view endpoint accessible without
login.
- Add JUnit TC to test for js lib presence in view mode.
## Description
> This PR implements the backend APIs for Invisible widgets in
Auto-height containers
> Notion doc here:
https://www.notion.so/appsmith/Invisible-widgets-in-auto-height-containers-460c6bf4e0a342e4a1fa4955f7f6c461
> Frontend feature implementation here:
https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/20118Fixes#19983
## Type of change
- New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Manual
- JUnit
## 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
- [x] 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
Testcases were flaky because loading cache after application is ready is
happening in async with testcases, so sometimes testcases fails if cache
is not loaded by the time testcase executes.
Testcases fail and gives the following error message `Appsmith server is
not ready. Please try again in some time`
This fixes the issue by running startup process in sync after
application is ready.
And there is a genuine failure of testcase
`exampleApplicationsAreMarked` which is fixed.
## Description
Implements backend APIs for Uploading and Deleting Navigation Logo
Fixes#19164
## Type of change
- New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Manual
- Postman
- JUnit Tests
## 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
- [x] 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
When an application is exported with credentials i.e. template
application, it does not contain the bearer token authentication
credentials. As a result, when user is trying to import this
application, the datasource configuration popup appears. This PR fixes
this issue.
TL;DR enable export-import application with bearer token authentication
Fixes#19415
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)
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Manual
- Jest
### 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:
- [ ] 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
