## Description
Whenever browser apis like window, navigator, print etc are using in the
JSmode bindings, current implementation does not show linting errors and
if such JS code is executed, we get error toast message of `window.alert
is not defined`. This is because linting errors are identified inside
lint worker and since we are inside the context of worker, it does not
understand the browser context or its APIs, thus this PR highlights the
linting errors when any of the browser APIs are using in JS bindings.
Before:
<img width="952" alt="Screenshot 2024-04-17 at 3 40 19 PM"
src="https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/assets/30018882/e2dbb1ab-52d4-4b2c-ae1e-93516cf399ea">
After:
<img width="642" alt="Screenshot 2024-04-17 at 3 41 11 PM"
src="https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/assets/30018882/9cb050d8-86ac-47b1-8804-7405a3f9bf1f">
Note: Existing cypress test of `BasicLint_spec.ts` has been modified to
assert linting issues in such case.
Fixes https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/16535
## Automation
/ok-to-test tags="@tag.JS"
### 🔍 Cypress test results
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment: Cypress test results -->
> [!TIP]
> 🟢🟢🟢 All cypress tests have passed! 🎉🎉🎉
> Workflow run:
<https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/actions/runs/8734064205>
> Commit: 86ad8803029c9250a0d283767ea142a2c78235d0
> Cypress dashboard url: <a
href="https://internal.appsmith.com/app/cypress-dashboard/rundetails-65890b3c81d7400d08fa9ee5?branch=master&workflowId=8734064205&attempt=2"
target="_blank">Click here!</a>
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: Cypress test results -->
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai
-->
## Summary by CodeRabbit
- **Tests**
- Updated test case descriptions and added steps for better browser
interaction and lint error assertions in the linting functionality.
- **Refactor**
- Modified linting options to improve behavior in browser environments.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
Co-authored-by: “sneha122” <“sneha@appsmith.com”>
## Description
This PR introduces lint errors for an imperative update of the appsmith
store object
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes#5822
#### Media
#### DP
https://ce-27708.dp.appsmith.com/
#### 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
- [x] Cypress
>
>
#### Test Plan
Store value modification in a js object, widget, query
>
>
#### Issues raised during DP testing
https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/27708#issuecomment-1740767974
>
>
>
## Checklist:
#### Dev activity
- [ ] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [ ] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [ ] My changes generate no new warnings
- [ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [ ] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag
#### QA activity:
- [ ] [Speedbreak
features](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#speedbreakers-)
have been covered
- [x] Test plan covers all impacted features and [areas of
interest](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#areas-of-interest-)
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by project stakeholders and other
QA members
- [x] Manually tested functionality on DP
- [ ] We had an implementation alignment call with stakeholders post QA
Round 2
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by SDET/manual QA
- [x] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after Cypress tests were reviewed
- [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after JUnit tests were reviewed
## 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#23447Fixes#23166Fixes#24194Fixes#23720Fixes#23868Fixes#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>
