af9a625de9
18 Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Valera Melnikov
|
9eac55a380
|
chore: add consistent-type-definitions rule (#27907)
## Description Add consistent-type-definitions rule |
||
|
Apeksha Bhosale
|
0f393a2423
|
chore: separated tree type into common file to be extended on EE (#27812)
## Description UnEvalTree, dataTree and configTree's entities needs to be extended on EE to accommodate module inputs and different types of modules hence the separation. I have added few more sanity checks in the existing code which were throwing errors/warning on EE. #### PR fixes following issue(s) Fixes # (issue number) #### Media > A video or a GIF is preferred. when using Loom, don’t embed because it looks like it’s a GIF. instead, just link to the video > > #### Type of change - Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception) > > > ## Testing > #### How Has This Been Tested? > Please describe the tests that you ran to verify your changes. Also list any relevant details for your test configuration. > Delete anything that is not relevant - [ ] Manual - [ ] JUnit - [ ] Jest - [ ] Cypress > > #### Test Plan > Add Testsmith test cases links that relate to this PR > > #### Issues raised during DP testing > Link issues raised during DP testing for better visiblity and tracking (copy link from comments dropped on this PR) > > > ## Checklist: #### Dev activity - [ ] My code follows the style guidelines of this project - [ ] I have performed a self-review of my own code - [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas - [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation - [ ] My changes generate no new warnings - [ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works - [ ] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes - [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag #### QA activity: - [ ] [Speedbreak features](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#speedbreakers-) have been covered - [ ] Test plan covers all impacted features and [areas of interest](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#areas-of-interest-) - [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by project stakeholders and other QA members - [ ] Manually tested functionality on DP - [ ] We had an implementation alignment call with stakeholders post QA Round 2 - [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by SDET/manual QA - [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after Cypress tests were reviewed - [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after JUnit tests were reviewed |
||
|
Apeksha Bhosale
|
4dc6df0013
|
chore: query module evaluation (#27660)
> Pull Request Template > > Use this template to quickly create a well written pull request. Delete all quotes before creating the pull request. > ## Description There are multiple refactors and split for query module's creator flow changes which involves module input -- it's a new entity introduced as part of modules project #### PR fixes following issue(s) Fixes # (issue number) Part of https://app.zenhub.com/workspaces/modules-pod-63e0d668a7fea03850c89c6f/issues/gh/appsmithorg/appsmith/27352 #### Type of change - Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception) > > ## Testing > #### How Has This Been Tested? > Please describe the tests that you ran to verify your changes. Also list any relevant details for your test configuration. > Delete anything that is not relevant - [ ] Manual - [ ] JUnit - [ ] Jest - [ ] Cypress > > #### Test Plan > Add Testsmith test cases links that relate to this PR > > #### Issues raised during DP testing > Link issues raised during DP testing for better visiblity and tracking (copy link from comments dropped on this PR) > > > ## Checklist: #### Dev activity - [ ] My code follows the style guidelines of this project - [ ] I have performed a self-review of my own code - [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas - [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation - [ ] My changes generate no new warnings - [ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works - [ ] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes - [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag #### QA activity: - [ ] [Speedbreak features](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#speedbreakers-) have been covered - [ ] Test plan covers all impacted features and [areas of interest](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#areas-of-interest-) - [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by project stakeholders and other QA members - [ ] Manually tested functionality on DP - [ ] We had an implementation alignment call with stakeholders post QA Round 2 - [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by SDET/manual QA - [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after Cypress tests were reviewed - [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after JUnit tests were reviewed |
||
|
Favour Ohanekwu
|
60fa6e352d
|
chore: Instrument JS execution (#25613)
This PR adds more details to the "EXECUTE_ACTION" event on trigger fields <img width="500" alt="Screenshot 2023-07-05 at 10 03 32" src="https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/assets/46670083/13b3ab48-6c19-453a-8eb8-c87129e8c8d5"> #### PR fixes following issue(s) Fixes #24706 #### 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: Aishwarya UR <aishwarya@appsmith.com> |
||
|
Druthi Polisetty
|
2fc20cfe8e
|
feat: widget property setters (#23441)
## Description
- This PR adds setter methods to update widget property
programmatically.
Example:-
`Input1.setText("setter methods are cool!");`
Docs link :
https://docs.appsmith.com/reference/widgets
For any selected widget check the `Methods` section
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes
#### Type of change
- New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
## Testing
>
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [x] Manual
- [x] Jest
- [x] Cypress
>
>
#### Test Plan
https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/issues/2409
#### Issues raised during DP testing
- [x] [Errors are not logged in the
debugger](https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/23441#issuecomment-1564017346)
separate GitHub issue
https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/24609
- [x]
https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/23441#issuecomment-1564155545
( `setVisibility("false")` )
- [x]
https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/23441#issuecomment-1580525843
- [x]
https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/23441#issuecomment-1576582825
- Blocker for testing
- [x]
https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/23441#issuecomment-1577956441
- [x]
https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/23441#issuecomment-1577930108
- Not a issue (lint error query)
- [x]
https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/23441#issuecomment-1593471791
- [x]
https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/23441#issuecomment-1591440488
- [x]
https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/23441#issuecomment-1586747864
- [x]
https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/23441#issuecomment-1596738201
- [x]
https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/23441#issuecomment-1598541537
- [x]
https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/23441#issuecomment-1611413076
- [x]
https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/23441#issuecomment-1612621567
- [ ]
https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/23441#issuecomment-1619654507
- [ ]
https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/23441#issuecomment-1621256722
>
>
## 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
- [x] Test plan covers all impacted features and [areas of
interest](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans/_edit#areas-of-interest)
- [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: Rishabh Rathod <rishabh.rathod@appsmith.com>
|
||
|
Favour Ohanekwu
|
3df0252692
|
fix: revert execution instrumentation (#25163) | ||
|
Favour Ohanekwu
|
a7f818d546
|
chore: Improve js execution instrumentation (#24994)
###Description This PR enriches the data logged for the EXECUTE_ACTION event on trigger fields. Example schema <img width="500" alt="Screenshot 2023-07-05 at 10 03 32" src="https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/assets/46670083/13b3ab48-6c19-453a-8eb8-c87129e8c8d5"> Fixes #24706 #### 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 |
||
|
Favour Ohanekwu
|
e6f2dcacde
|
feat: Improve Linting performance (#23865)
## Description This PR introduces a new architecture, making evaluation and linting independent. <img width="500" alt="Screenshot 2023-07-04 at 17 24 40" src="https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/assets/46670083/00b1eab9-cd79-4442-b51a-5345c2d6c4da"> In the previous architecture, one dependency graph was used to hold the relationship between entities in the application and subsequently, the "evaluation order" and "paths to lint" were generated. Although similar, the dependency graph required for evaluation and linting differ. For example, trigger fields should not depend on any other entity/entity path in the eval's dependency graph since they are not reactive. This is not the case for the linting dependency graph. ## Performance - This PR introduces "lint only" actions. These actions trigger linting, but not evaluation. For example, UPDATE_JS_ACTION_BODY_INIT (which is fired immediately after a user edits the body of a JS Object). Since linting fires without waiting for a successful update on the server, **response time decreases by 40%** (from 2s to 1.2s). - Reduction in time taken to generate paths requiring linting. <img width="715" alt="Screenshot 2023-07-04 at 18 10 52" src="https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/assets/46670083/d73a4bfc-de73-4fa7-bdca-af1e5d8ce8a1"> #### PR fixes following issue(s) Fixes #23447 Fixes #23166 Fixes #24194 Fixes #23720 Fixes #23868 Fixes #21895 Latest DP: https://appsmith-r3f9e325p-get-appsmith.vercel.app/ #### Type of change - Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception) ## Testing > #### How Has This Been Tested? - [x] Manual - [ ] Jest - [ ] Cypress > > #### Test Plan https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/23865#issuecomment-1606738633 > > #### Issues raised during DP testing https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/23865#issuecomment-1608779227 response: https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/23865#issuecomment-1619677033 > > > ## Checklist: #### Dev activity - [ ] My code follows the style guidelines of this project - [ ] I have performed a self-review of my own code - [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas - [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation - [ ] My changes generate no new warnings - [ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works - [ ] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes - [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag #### QA activity: - [ ] [Speedbreak features](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Test-plan-implementation#speedbreaker-features-to-consider-for-every-change) have been covered - [ ] Test plan covers all impacted features and [areas of interest](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans/_edit#areas-of-interest) - [x] Test plan has been peer reviewed by project stakeholders and other QA members - [x] Manually tested functionality on DP - [ ] We had an implementation alignment call with stakeholders post QA Round 2 - [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by SDET/manual QA - [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after Cypress tests were reviewed - [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after JUnit tests were reviewed --------- Co-authored-by: arunvjn <arun@appsmith.com> Co-authored-by: Ivan Akulov <mail@iamakulov.com> |
||
|
Rishabh Rathod
|
a2a881991e
|
chore: Add analytics for JSObject variable (#24740)
## Description Add analytics for JSObject variable creation and mutation event. #### PR fixes following issue(s) Fixes #24038 #### Type of change - Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue) ## Testing #### How Has This Been Tested? #### 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 |
||
|
Favour Ohanekwu
|
5db37b871e
|
chore: Log JS Function execution (#24163) | ||
|
Rishabh Rathod
|
d6372d0b81
|
feat: JSObject variable as a state (JSObject variable mutation) (#19926)
Fixes #19653 Fixes #14568 Fixes #17199 Fixes #14989 In this PR, we introduce a new feature in JSObject where the `variables` are now state and widgets are reactive to the change in the variable value. - It means that `JSObject.myVar1 = "Hello world"` would show `Hello world` where ever a binding `{{JSObject.myVar1}}` is used. Further changes - JSObject run functionality, executes all the functions in async evaluation. - `executeSyncJS` flow is removed - `resolvedFunctions` state is moved to JSCollection class. - unEval JSObject value i.e., currentJSCollectionState is moved to JSCollection class. - `evalTreeWithChanges` is introduced - A new flow to trigger evaluation from the worker and send the updated dataTree to mainThread. - This would open up a new possibility of features in evaluation mentioned [here](https://www.notion.so/appsmith/RFC-Dependent-Property-in-Widgets-f3b29ad652b549dd8c49189f48dbbc4b) - Introduction of `updateDataTreeHandler` to accept new dataTree from the worker. ## Type of change - New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality) ## How Has This Been Tested? ### Jest Test - `Mutation.test.ts` - `JSVariableProxy.test.ts` - `removeProxy.test.ts` ### Cypress test - Mutation with - numbers - array - object - map - set ### Test Plan - https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/issues/2186 ### Issues raised during DP testing - https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/19926#issuecomment-1453275688 - https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/19926#issuecomment-1478975487 - https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/19926#issuecomment-1482929425 - https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/19926#issuecomment-1486611858 Co-authored-by: Rimil Dey <rimildeyjsr@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: Rimil Dey <rimil@appsmith.com> Co-authored-by: arunvjn <32433245+arunvjn@users.noreply.github.com> |
||
|
Favour Ohanekwu
|
b80b0ca3fa
|
feat: show lint errors in async functions bound to sync fields (#21187)
## Description This PR improves the error resolution journey for users. Lint warnings are added to async JS functions which are bound to data fields (sync fields). - JSObjects are "linted" by individual properties (as opposed to being "linted" as a whole) - Only edited jsobject properties get "linted", improving jsObject linting by ~35%.(This largely depends on the size of the JSObject) <img width="500" alt="Screenshot 2023-04-03 at 11 17 45" src="https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/46670083/229482424-233f3950-ffec-46f5-8c42-680dff6a412f.png"> <img width="500" alt="Screenshot 2023-03-14 at 11 26 00" src="https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/46670083/224975572-b2d8d404-aac6-43fb-be14-20edf7c56117.png"> <img width="500" alt="Screenshot 2023-03-14 at 11 41 11" src="https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/46670083/224975952-c40848b1-69d8-489d-9b62-24127ea1a2f1.png"> Fixes #20289 Fixes #20008 ## Type of change - Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue) ## How Has This Been Tested? - CYPRESS - 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 - [ ] 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 - [x] Test plan has been peer reviewed by QA - [x] 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 |
||
|
Apeksha Bhosale
|
2b25e1e9b0
|
fix: Improving performance of JS evaluations by splitting the data tree (#21547)
## Description This is the second phase of the split data tree. In the previous version, we collected all config paths in each entity and put them in the `__config__` property. All those config properties do get inserted into final data tree which we don't need at all. As part of this change, we will be creating another tree i.e **'configTree'** which will contain all config of each entity. unEvalTree is split into 2 trees => 1. unEvalTree 2. configTree Example: previous unEvalTree Api1 content <img width="1766" alt="image" src="https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/7846888/215990868-0b095421-e7b8-44bc-89aa-065b35e237d6.png"> After this change unEvalTree Api1 content <img width="1758" alt="image" src="https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/7846888/215991045-506fb10a-645a-4aad-8e77-0f3786a86977.png"> Note- above example doesn't have '__config__' property configTree Api1 content <img width="1760" alt="image" src="https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/7846888/215991169-a2e03443-5d6a-4ff1-97c5-a12593e46395.png"> ## Type of change - Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception) - #11351 ## 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 Co-authored-by: Aishwarya UR <aishwarya@appsmith.com> |
||
|
Ivan Akulov
|
424d2f6965
|
chore: upgrade to prettier v2 + enforce import types (#21013)Co-authored-by: Satish Gandham <hello@satishgandham.com> Co-authored-by: Satish Gandham <satish.iitg@gmail.com>
## Description
This PR upgrades Prettier to v2 + enforces TypeScript’s [`import
type`](https://www.typescriptlang.org/docs/handbook/release-notes/typescript-3-8.html#type-only-imports-and-export)
syntax where applicable. It’s submitted as a separate PR so we can merge
it easily.
As a part of this PR, we reformat the codebase heavily:
- add `import type` everywhere where it’s required, and
- re-format the code to account for Prettier 2’s breaking changes:
https://prettier.io/blog/2020/03/21/2.0.0.html#breaking-changes
This PR is submitted against `release` to make sure all new code by team
members will adhere to new formatting standards, and we’ll have fewer
conflicts when merging `bundle-optimizations` into `release`. (I’ll
merge `release` back into `bundle-optimizations` once this PR is
merged.)
### Why is this needed?
This PR is needed because, for the Lodash optimization from
|
||
|
Druthi Polisetty
|
bf3502166b
|
fix: Error log on a widget property not clearing out when the widget property is deleted (#20486)
## Description fix: Error log on a widget property not clearing out when the widget property is deleted Fixes #12894 ## Type of change - Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue) ## How Has This Been Tested? - 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 |
||
|
arunvjn
|
1d9d5bb197
|
fix: access outer scope variables inside callbacks (#20168)
## Description
Any platform function that accepts a callback were unable to access the
variables declared in its parent scopes. This was a implementation miss
when we originally designed platform functions and again when we turned
almost every platform function into a Promise. This PR fixes this
limitation along with some other edge cases.
- Access outer scope variables inside the callback of run, postMessage,
setInterval, getGeoLocation and watchGeolocation functions.
- Fixes certain edge cases where functions with callbacks when called
inside the then block doesn't get executed. Eg `showAlert.then(() => /*
Doesn't execute */ Api1.run(() => {}))`
- Changes the implementation of all the platform function in appsmith to
maintain the execution metadata (info on from where a function was
invoked, event associated with it etc)
#### Refactor changes
- Added a new folder **_fns_** that would now hold all the platform
functions.
- Introduced a new ExecutionMetadata singleton class that is now
responsible for hold all the meta data related to the current
evaluation.
- Remove TRIGGER_COLLECTOR array where all callback based platform
functions were batched and introduced an Event Emitter based
implementation to handle batched fn calls.
- All callback based functions now emits event when invoked. These
events have handlers attached to the TriggerEmitter object. These
handler does the job of batching these invocations and telling the main
thread. It also ensures that platform fn calls that gets triggered out
the the context of a request/response cycle work.
#### Architecture
<img width="751" alt="Screenshot 2023-02-07 at 10 04 26"
src="https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/32433245/217259200-5eac71bc-f0d3-4d3c-9b69-2a8dc81351bc.png">
Fixes #13156
Fixes #20225
## Type of change
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
- Refactor
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Jest
- Cypress
- Manual
### Test Plan
- [ ] https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/issues/2181
- [ ] https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/issues/2182
- [ ] Post message -
https://appsmith-git-chore-outer-scope-variable-access-get-appsmith.vercel.app/app/post-msg-app/page1-635fcfba2987b442a739b938/edit
- [ ] Apps:
https://appsmith-git-chore-outer-scope-variable-access-get-appsmith.vercel.app/app/earworm-1/home-630c9d85b4658d0f257c4987/edit
- [ ]
https://appsmith-git-chore-outer-scope-variable-access-get-appsmith.vercel.app/app/automation-test-cases/page-1-630c6b90d4ecd573f6bb01e9/edit#0hmn8m90ei
### 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
- [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:
- [ ] 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 reviewing all Cypress test
|
||
|
Favour Ohanekwu
|
95a8daf6b9
|
fix: Handle clone errors in async executions (#20097)
## Description Fixes #19982 ## Type of change - Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue) ## How Has This Been Tested? WIP ### 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 - [x] Test plan has been peer reviewed by QA - [x] 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 - [x] Added Test Plan Approved label after reveiwing all Cypress test --------- Co-authored-by: Aishwarya UR <aishwarya@appsmith.com> |
||
|
Rishabh Rathod
|
ea5a397f50
|
chore: Refactor for JSFunction execution auditLogs (#19671)
## Description As auditLog related Code refactor for EE auditLog changes. - Moving evalWorkerActionSaga to new file - Created JSFunctionExecutionSaga & postJSFunctionExecutionLog - logic for the functionality of it would be added in EE. - Made required changes in the JSProxy file to send functionName as a parameter. ## Type of change Code refactor ## 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 - [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 |
