Protei/PromucFlow_constructor
2
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions 3 Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
17,529 Commits 1 Branch 0 Tags 507 MiB
b6c506dea5
Commit Graph

67 Commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
Rishabh Rathod
263448c84b
fix: function undefined error after resetWidget is called due to sync… (#33600) 
## Description

Fixed the error of async function like `Api.run` being `undefined` after
running `resetWidget`.

#### Context:-
we have 2 types of evaluation i.e., sync and async evaluation.

These are dependent on the field we are evaluating, for the data field
we use sync evaluation and for the trigger field, we use async
evaluation. In Async evaluation, we also define entity functions like
`Api.run`.
- In resetWidget code, internally we were switching to sync evaluation
and we forgot to add code to switch back to async and due to this code
that was after it was throwing an `undefined` error.


Fixes https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/33601

### Steps to reproduce 

1. Import user’s application ( shared on slack )
2. Go to JSObj_Main JSObject
3. Check the onClickCopySheetTemplate function 
4. Comment the await Qry_C_CopySheetTemplate.run(); line and run the
function.
5. On release it will throw error for Qry_R_SheetTemplate.run(); not
being defined but will work fine on DP.

## 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/9170093222>
> Commit: f9e8893d12cedbd9d2368cd9609bda7b86816588
> Cypress dashboard url: <a
href="https://internal.appsmith.com/app/cypress-dashboard/rundetails-65890b3c81d7400d08fa9ee5?branch=master&workflowId=9170093222&attempt=1"
target="_blank">Click here!</a>

<!-- end of auto-generated comment: Cypress test results  -->








## Communication
Should the DevRel and Marketing teams inform users about this change?
- [ ] Yes
- [x] No
 2024-05-21 15:43:07 +05:30
Vemparala Surya Vamsi
56d6c45805
chore: added unit test cases for disableLogs and microDiff (#33292) 
## Description
Added missing unit test cases for these prs
[disableLogs](https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/32892) and
[microDiff](https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/32581).

Fixes #33291

## Automation

/ok-to-test tags="@tag.All"

### 🔍 Cypress test results
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment: Cypress test results  -->
> [!WARNING]
> Workflow run:
<https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/actions/runs/9001043422>
> Commit: e3bb0247e1bbe8c13de994c21b090ec02746224d
> Cypress dashboard url: <a
href="https://internal.appsmith.com/app/cypress-dashboard/rundetails-65890b3c81d7400d08fa9ee5?branch=master&workflowId=9001043422&attempt=3"
target="_blank">Click here!</a>
> It seems like **no tests ran** 😔. We are not able to recognize it,
please check workflow <a
href="https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/actions/runs/9001043422"
target="_blank">here.</a>

<!-- end of auto-generated comment: Cypress test results  -->







## Communication
Should the DevRel and Marketing teams inform users about this change?
- [ ] Yes
- [ ] No
 2024-05-09 17:17:58 +05:30
Ankita Kinger
086582b4b3
chore: Removing the audit log API call for JS action execution (#33151) 
## Description

Removing the audit log API call for JS action execution as discussed
here:
https://theappsmith.slack.com/archives/C02K0SZQ7V3/p1714112912735089

Fixes [#33150](https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/33150)

## Automation

/ok-to-test tags="@tag.All"

### 🔍 Cypress test results
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment: Cypress test results  -->
> [!TIP]
> 🟢 🟢 🟢 All cypress tests have passed! 🎉 🎉 🎉
> Workflow run:
<https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/actions/runs/8935334970>
> Commit: bb69ebfe99b6b2ef5a77fe6687a3233e77905823
> Cypress dashboard url: <a
href="https://internal.appsmith.com/app/cypress-dashboard/rundetails-65890b3c81d7400d08fa9ee5?branch=master&workflowId=8935334970&attempt=1"
target="_blank">Click here!</a>

<!-- end of auto-generated comment: Cypress test results  -->









## Communication
Should the DevRel and Marketing teams inform users about this change?
- [ ] Yes
- [ ] No
 2024-05-03 13:52:34 +05:30
Vemparala Surya Vamsi
cfd6cc8fce
chore: using micro diff for js objects instead of deepDiff (#32581) 
## Description
Using micro diff instead of deepDiff for diffing jsobjects in
setupUpdateTree. Have observed a 33% reduction in webworker scripting
through this on a customer's application.

Fixes #15953

> [!WARNING]  
> _If no issue exists, please create an issue first, and check with the
maintainers if the issue is valid._

## Automation

/ok-to-test tags="@tag.All"

### 🔍 Cypress test results
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment: Cypress test results  -->
> [!TIP]
> 🟢 🟢 🟢 All cypress tests have passed! 🎉 🎉 🎉
> Workflow run:
<https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/actions/runs/8644903634>
> Commit: f5e4c0fb7d4ebba7c35f03c1cee079b53712cc3c
> Cypress dashboard url: <a
href="https://internal.appsmith.com/app/cypress-dashboard/rundetails-65890b3c81d7400d08fa9ee5?branch=master&workflowId=8644903634&attempt=2"
target="_blank">Click here!</a>

<!-- end of auto-generated comment: Cypress test results  -->
 2024-04-11 17:27:30 +05:30
Vemparala Surya Vamsi
e151524d1c
feat: constrained diff between states (#31847) 
## Description
We are constraining the diff between the old dataTree and the
newDataTree to its only affected nodes. The affected nodes list is the
evalOrder, unevalUpdates and updatedValuePaths (which represents
localStorage and setter updates). Through limiting the diff to the
affected node list this should help in reducing the diff computation
latency and overall improve the performance of each evaluation cycle.
We are also cleaning up code related to compressing and decompressing
updates since we deprecated that functionality.

Fixes #31272  

## Automation

/ok-to-test tags="@tag.All"

### 🔍 Cypress test results
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment: Cypress test results  -->
> [!IMPORTANT]
> Workflow run:
<https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/actions/runs/8447023192>
> Commit: `cb925afbb99577947fbc7233a35e4454223b402a`
> Cypress dashboard url: <a
href="https://internal.appsmith.com/app/cypress-dashboard/rundetails-65890b3c81d7400d08fa9ee5?branch=master&workflowId=8447023192&attempt=2"
target="_blank">Click here!</a>
> All cypress tests have passed 🎉🎉🎉

<!-- end of auto-generated comment: Cypress test results  -->


















































































<!-- This is an auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai
-->
## Summary by CodeRabbit

- **New Features**
- Introduced new logic for handling widget state updates efficiently.
- Enhanced evaluation logic to support optimized diff updates and
serialization.
- Improved data tree generation for error handling and evaluation order.
- **Bug Fixes**
- Addressed issues in generating optimized updates for large collections
and handling `undefined` values.
- Fixed Cypress tests in the "PgAdmin Clone App" spec for more reliable
interaction with UI elements.
- **Refactor**
- Simplified the logic for widget state cleanup and evaluation paths
handling.
- Removed unused variables and functions related to widget meta
properties and evaluation paths.
- **Tests**
- Added new spec file `PgAdmin_spec.js` to Cypress limited tests for
client-side regression testing.
- **Chores**
- Updated type imports across various files to reflect changes in
evaluation logic.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
 2024-03-27 14:37:46 +05:30
Rishabh Rathod
fc453c8b5f
chore: Remove JS_VARIABLE_MUTATED event (#31884) 
## Description
This PR removes logging of `JS_VARIABLE_MUTATED` event and related code.

Fixes https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/31879

> [!WARNING]  
> _If no issue exists, please create an issue first, and check with the
maintainers if the issue is valid._

## Automation

/ok-to-test tags="@tag.JS"

### 🔍 Cypress test results
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment: Cypress test results  -->
> [!IMPORTANT]  
> Workflow run:
<https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/actions/runs/8328673492>
> Commit: `bcadfaca12b84783d8b103d2eb769c3cc53039e7`
> Cypress dashboard url: <a
href="https://internal.appsmith.com/app/cypress-dashboard/rundetails-65890b3c81d7400d08fa9ee5?branch=master&workflowId=8328673492&attempt=1"
target="_blank">Click here!</a>
> All cypress tests have passed 🎉🎉🎉

<!-- end of auto-generated comment: Cypress test results  -->



<!-- This is an auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai
-->

## Summary by CodeRabbit

- **Chores**
- Removed unused analytics events and related code for tracking
JavaScript variable mutations to streamline the application's
performance and maintainability.

<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
 2024-03-18 21:39:11 +05:30
Ayush Pahwa
5fdc0a1ef9
feat: workflows assign request on browser (#31159) 
## Description

We are allowing users to have write workflows assign request queries in
the JS object editor for the workflows editor. This means, users should
get autocomplete for `appsmith.workflows.assignRequest` and the
arguments required should be shown in the autocomplete also. To enable
this, following changes have been made
1) Add empty workflows object to the appsmith function type in store and
and add ee only type definitions to the `EntityDefinitions` for appsmith
namespace.
2) Replace entityFunctions as static variable and use a function which
appends EE entity functions.
3) Added types for ee only functions
4) Retain the `isMainJsObject` flag for the js file when updates happen.

#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes # (issue number)

#### Type of change

- New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)

## Testing
>
#### How Has This Been Tested?
> Please describe the tests that you ran to verify your changes. Also
list any relevant details for your test configuration.
> Delete anything that is not relevant
- [ ] Manual
- [ ] JUnit
- [ ] Jest
- [ ] Cypress
>
>
#### Test Plan
> Add Testsmith test cases links that relate to this PR
>
>
#### Issues raised during DP testing
> Link issues raised during DP testing for better visiblity and tracking
(copy link from comments dropped on this PR)
>
>
>
## Checklist:
#### Dev activity
- [ ] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [ ] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [ ] My changes generate no new warnings
- [ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [ ] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag


#### QA activity:
- [ ] [Speedbreak
features](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#speedbreakers-)
have been covered
- [ ] Test plan covers all impacted features and [areas of
interest](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#areas-of-interest-)
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by project stakeholders and other
QA members
- [ ] Manually tested functionality on DP
- [ ] We had an implementation alignment call with stakeholders post QA
Round 2
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by SDET/manual QA
- [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after Cypress tests were reviewed
- [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after JUnit tests were reviewed


<!-- This is an auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai
-->
## Summary by CodeRabbit

- **New Features**
- Introduced new autocomplete definitions for enhanced code editor
suggestions.
- Added support for categorizing entities in the Explorer panel using
`GROUP_TYPES` for improved organization and navigation.
- **Refactor**
- Updated the action helpers and reducers to support new properties and
ensure state consistency.
- Improved the structure for autocomplete helper functions, facilitating
easier extension and maintenance.
- **Chores**
- Established foundational code for future development with empty enums
and placeholder functions.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
 2024-03-04 19:56:47 +05:30
Vemparala Surya Vamsi
811ab1a6cc
chore: should not perform diff and clone operations on evalProps (#31161) 
## Description
We have to not perform diff and clone computations of evalProps in the
worker thread and subsequently ensure the application continues to work
the same. Through this step we should expect a significant improvement
in performance.

#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes #31092

#### 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


<!-- This is an auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai
-->
## Summary by CodeRabbit



- **Refactor**
- Optimized data handling and evaluation processes across various
components.
- **New Features**
- Enhanced the `CodeEditor` component to support additional validation
scenarios for dynamic properties.
- **Bug Fixes**
- Removed unnecessary dependencies and streamlined data retrieval in
property controls.

<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
 2024-02-16 19:30:40 +05:30
Rajat Agrawal
ce4d5af147
chore: Add traces for measuring data transfer time between worker thread and… (#30537) 2024-01-25 14:04:17 +05:30
Apeksha Bhosale
49d5615bfa
chore: add params for query instance (#30333) 
## Description
Adding params for query module instance on action selector


#### 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 action entity detection within the app for improved user
experience.
  
- **Refactor**
- Streamlined action-related code for better performance and
maintainability.

- **Bug Fixes**
- Resolved issues with incorrect action entity recognition in certain
scenarios.

<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
 2024-01-17 10:28:33 +05:30
Apeksha Bhosale
588e2aee8a
fix: extend a function for ee (#30227) 
> 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

- **Refactor**
- Improved evaluation logic for better identification of non-entity
elements within the application.

<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
 2024-01-11 18:33:52 +05:30
Ankita Kinger
cf6c77194b
chore: Refactoring entity types and updating DS action create permission to fix some bugs on EE (#29573) 
## Description

Refactoring entity types and updating DS action create permission to fix
some bugs on EE

#### 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?
- [x] Manual
- [ ] JUnit
- [x] Jest
- [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
- [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

- **Refactor**
- Streamlined entity type naming conventions across the application for
better consistency.
- Enhanced type definitions for improved code clarity and
maintainability.
- Updated function calls to use object parameters with named properties
for better readability.

- **New Features**
- Introduced a new entity type for module instances, expanding the
application's data handling capabilities.

- **Bug Fixes**
- Corrected improper type assertions to ensure accurate entity
recognition and processing.

- **Documentation**
- Added comments to clarify the non-introduction of certain dependencies
in specific components.

- **Style**
- Adjusted import statements to align with the updated naming
conventions.

- **Tests**
- Updated test cases to reflect changes in entity type references and
assertions.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
 2023-12-14 20:14:30 +05:30
Rishabh Rathod
c29a7e1712
chore: CE changes for JSModule execution (#29489) 
## Description

- Add `isAnyJSAction` method to check for JSAction and JSModule in EE

#### PR fixes following issue(s)


#### Type of change

- Chore 

## 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 the evaluation logic to include a broader range of JavaScript
actions.

- **Refactor**
- Streamlined JavaScript action checks within the evaluation process for
dynamic bound values.

- **Documentation**
- Updated function descriptions to reflect the new evaluation
capabilities.

<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
 2023-12-11 13:14:27 +05:30
Rishabh Rathod
f07a57b7fc
chore: create evalContext for module instance CE changes (#29008) 
## Description

Change for set evalContext for module instance

#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes #

#### 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
 2023-11-22 15:03:00 +05:30
Apeksha Bhosale
6e39d11b14
chore: split for module instance evaluation on ee (#29027) 
## Description
Module instance evaluation required split to be extended on EE

#### 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
 2023-11-22 15:02:44 +05:30
Apeksha Bhosale
31dc751e71
Fix: refactor condition to accomodate module inputs on ee (#28819) 
## Description
 refactor condition to accomodate module inputs on ee

#### 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
 2023-11-14 10:56:04 +05:30
Rishabh Rathod
01e3c57ba4
chore: fix type errors in EE (#28620) 
## Description


#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes 


#### 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
 2023-11-03 14:08:40 +05:30
Rishabh Rathod
1afaf2bad5
chore: Remove PageList From DataTree (#28579) 
## Description

In this change, we remove the pageList entity from dataTree

#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes # (issue number)

#### Type of change
- Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception)

## Testing
>
#### How Has This Been Tested?
> Please describe the tests that you ran to verify your changes. Also
list any relevant details for your test configuration.
> Delete anything that is not relevant
- [ ] Manual
- [ ] JUnit
- [ ] Jest
- [ ] Cypress
>
>
#### Test Plan
> Add Testsmith test cases links that relate to this PR
>
>
#### Issues raised during DP testing
> Link issues raised during DP testing for better visiblity and tracking
(copy link from comments dropped on this PR)
>
>
>
## Checklist:
#### Dev activity
- [ ] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [ ] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [ ] My changes generate no new warnings
- [ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [ ] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag


#### QA activity:
- [ ] [Speedbreak
features](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#speedbreakers-)
have been covered
- [ ] Test plan covers all impacted features and [areas of
interest](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#areas-of-interest-)
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by project stakeholders and other
QA members
- [ ] Manually tested functionality on DP
- [ ] We had an implementation alignment call with stakeholders post QA
Round 2
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by SDET/manual QA
- [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after Cypress tests were reviewed
- [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after JUnit tests were reviewed
 2023-11-03 06:00:50 +05:30
arunvjn
f62816a9d5
fix: Validation issue in select widget on page reload (#28277) 
## Description
Fixes the regression in select widget validation caused by
https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/27408
This PR remove most of the re-validation related logic written in
evaluations code base. Going forward we'll maintain an internal
dependencyMap for widgets. This can help avoid IIFE hacks to introduce
dependency between fields.

###### Changes
- Removes the concept of dependentPaths in validation config.
- Remove validationDependencyMap from eval code base.
- Added internal dependency map to base widget.
- Added dependency map config for select, multi-select & Tabs widget.

#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes #28368 
Fixes #28224

#### Type of change
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
>
>
## Testing
>
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [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
- [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
- [x] 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
 2023-10-27 18:18:42 +05:30
Apeksha Bhosale
eefe0afab3
chore: split dependency map functions to be extendable on EE (#28147) 
## Description
Module inputs are a new entity and can have dynamic values. To make
evalution work for entity, we need to add dependency map for inputs.
This is initial PR to split the code to make it more extendable to the
module inputs on EE

#### 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
 2023-10-17 18:52:30 +05:30
Apeksha Bhosale
575d7fcc36
chore: fixed typescript errors which are thrown in EE because of split (#28009) 
## Description
few type errors which are being thrown in ee because of the split is
fixed in this PR

#### 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
 2023-10-16 14:53:47 +05:30
Dipyaman Biswas
af9a625de9
feat: add feature flags to workers. (#27258) 
## Description

Adding feature flags to Lint and Eval workers which will be used to
compute the feature in EE


#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes #https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith-ee/issues/1905
#### Type of change
> Please delete options that are not relevant.
- New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
- Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing
functionality to not work as expected)
>
>
>
## Testing
>
#### How Has This Been Tested?
> Please describe the tests that you ran to verify your changes. Also
list any relevant details for your test configuration.
> Delete anything that is not relevant
- [x] Manual
- [ ] JUnit
- [ ] Jest
- [x] Cypress
>
>
#### Test Plan
> Add Testsmith test cases links that relate to this PR
>
>
#### Issues raised during DP testing
> Link issues raised during DP testing for better visiblity and tracking
(copy link from comments dropped on this PR)
>
>
>
## Checklist:
#### Dev activity
- [ ] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [ ] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [ ] My changes generate no new warnings
- [ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [ ] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag


#### QA activity:
- [ ] [Speedbreak
features](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#speedbreakers-)
have been covered
- [ ] Test plan covers all impacted features and [areas of
interest](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#areas-of-interest-)
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by project stakeholders and other
QA members
- [ ] Manually tested functionality on DP
- [ ] We had an implementation alignment call with stakeholders post QA
Round 2
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by SDET/manual QA
- [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after Cypress tests were reviewed
- [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after JUnit tests were reviewed
 2023-10-12 23:02:38 +05:30
Valera Melnikov
9eac55a380
chore: add consistent-type-definitions rule (#27907) 
## Description
Add consistent-type-definitions rule
 2023-10-11 10:35:24 +03:00
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
 2023-10-10 18:02:17 +05:30
arunvjn
c8d661ab02
chore: prevent mutation during evaluation and execution (#27722) 
## Description
Fixes the data mutation bug introduced back in
[#11001](https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/11001).
We now create 2 data tree in evaluation flow, one that is set against
the execution context (prone to mutation) and another one which only
gets the values of the path that is being evaluated.

Accidental mutation often crashes the app. To replicate  the issue
1. D&D a text widget and an Input widget
2. In the input widget default text field, write `{{ Text1.text = 123
}}`

Context -
https://theappsmith.slack.com/archives/C02K0SZQ7V3/p1695975703880489

#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes #19221
>
>
#### Type of change
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
>
>
## Testing
>
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [x] Manual
- [x] Jest
>
>
#### Test Plan
- [x] Test evaluations across widgets, framework functions, setter
methods
- [x] Existing application sanity check
- [x] Template apps and CRUD
>
>
#### Issues raised during DP testing
none
>
>
>
## Checklist:
#### Dev activity
- [x] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] My changes generate no new warnings
- [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
- [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after Cypress tests were reviewed
- [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after JUnit tests were reviewed
 2023-10-10 12:38:45 +05:30
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
 2023-09-29 16:12:14 +05:30
Favour Ohanekwu
e37d3b8dba
feat: Remove Action/Query/JS data from unevalTree (#27056) 
## Description

This PR reduces the size of the unevalTree by removing action/query/js
function data from it. This improves the performance of Apps by

1. Reducing the overall time for generating dataTree diffs
2. Decreasing the time taken to generate allKeys 
3. Reducing the number of nodes in the dependency graph thereby
improving dependency graph operations like

    -    Sorting dependencies
    -    Adding nodes to the dep graph



### Performance

Release

<img width="294" alt="Screenshot 2023-09-27 at 20 22 31"
src="https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/assets/46670083/df4667e5-33c3-44c6-bfd4-a170edaa43b8">


DP

<img width="304" alt="Screenshot 2023-09-27 at 20 24 16"
src="https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/assets/46670083/598d4a2d-9a32-4bcf-81e7-25f178f779d5">


37.8% improvement in worker scripting time for fairly large App.



#### PR fixes following issue(s)

Fixes #23570


#### Type of change

- New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)



#### 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
1. Validating the Crude app/ api query and JS object
2. Validating the chart/table/Select/Tree select for Query and API
#### 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
 2023-09-27 23:03:38 +01:00
Rishabh Rathod
ab6b3e4e4a
fix: support dataDerivedPaths for revalidation (#27408) 2023-09-27 22:34:43 +05:30
Vemparala Surya Vamsi
87fd2eb9f4
chore: send serialised updated and using klona/json instead of klona (#27319) 
## Description

- We are no longer performing JSON.stringify(JSON.parse(value)) to
clone, clean up undefined values and serialised bigInt.
- We are performing deepClones using klona/json which is much faster and
later we perform the serialisation on the diff.
- We are sending serialised updated to the main thread and it is parsed
on the main thread, this helps in reducing structuredClone cost of
sending unserialised objects.
- Noticed a reduction of worker thread latency by about 75% and doubled
the databound our app can handle.

#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes #26130

#### Type of change
- Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception)

## 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
- [ ] 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
- [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
- [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after Cypress tests were reviewed
- [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after JUnit tests were reviewed
 2023-09-26 17:44:20 +05:30
Favour Ohanekwu
23ba0921c7
feat: Update isLoading peoperty of widgets after API/Query execution (#27406) 
## Description
In this PR, we ensure that after API execution, data is available in the
dataTree before setting widget isLoading to false.

#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes #26935 

#### 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
 2023-09-18 19:45:44 +01:00
balajisoundar
2608e3dbd3
chore: Move the widget config to widget class (#26073) 
## Description
- Remove the config objects from widget and config maps from the widget
factory.
- Introduce methods in widget development API to dynamically fetch this
items.
- freeze the widget configuration.

#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/26008
> 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
- [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
- [ ] 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
- [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after Cypress tests were reviewed
- [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after JUnit tests were reviewed
 2023-09-06 17:45:04 +05:30
arunvjn
e9ec8d227f
feat: Added support for ESM builds of custom JS libraries (#26671) 
## Description
Appsmith so far could only support UMD builds of any JS library. This
meant that users would have to figure a compatible UMD build that works
with Appsmith and test if works within Appsmith.
Most libraries on jsDelivr have ESM builds shipped out of the box and
support these libraries should take away the UMD pain from the users.

#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes #26424 
>
#### 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] Cypress
>
>
#### Test Plan
- [x] Installation/uninstallation
- [x] lint error check post uninstall
- [x] Installation/uninstallation on git connected app
- [x] edit & view mode check
- [x] incorrect URL format
>
>
#### Issues raised during DP testing
None

**caveat** - Libraries that require to be run on worker will fail
eg: https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/@javfres/speech-generator@1.0.5/+esm
>
>
>
## 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
- [ ] 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>
 2023-09-01 13:49:21 +05:30
Vemparala Surya Vamsi
ec922d1366
chore: send diff updates from worker (#24933) 
## Description

- Optimisation around evaluation updates to the state
- Updates generation logic moved from main thread to worker thread
- The diff between previous state and next state is less exacting to
limit the number of updates
- Logic to compress similar updates to reduce the diff updates sent from
worker thread to main thread
- Memoisation fixes and some selector optimisation for improved
performance.

#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes #24866

#### 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] 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
 2023-08-16 11:04:32 +05:30
Favour Ohanekwu
b7ca44b252
feat: Remove async/sync differentiation from Appsmith (#25399) 
## 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 #25176 
Fixes #25065
Fixes #15560
Fixes #15273 
Fixes #12639
Fixes #14229 
Fixes #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>
 2023-08-05 06:38:53 +01:00
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>
 2023-07-27 12:07:56 +01:00
Rishabh Rathod
b863b39d69
feat: Add linting error for assignment expression (#25140) 
## Description


This change adds a linting error for direct mutation of widget property
like `Widget.property = "dsf"` and instead suggests to use setter
methods.


#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes #5822


#### Type of change

- New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)

## Testing

- [x] Add jest tests as mentioned in the
[comments](https://www.notion.so/appsmith/Widget-Property-Setters-Tech-Spec-2a34730e2e6d4df8ae7637c363b1096c?pvs=4#276554d9875b42d68868aa969e9d7d03)
of the tech spec document for this project.
- [x] Add test to verify linting error for widget assignment
- [x] Add cypress test for autocomplete of more setter methods 
- [x] Add cypress test for currencyInput setValue 

#### How Has This Been Tested?

- [ ] Manual
- [ ] Jest
- [x] 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
- [x] 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: Druthi Polisetty <druthi@appsmith.com>
 2023-07-24 12:23:45 +05:30
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>
 2023-07-08 19:37:26 +05:30
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>
 2023-07-05 14:34:03 +01:00
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
 2023-06-23 16:12:27 +05:30
Favour Ohanekwu
d665511c8d
fix: Get default value from entityTree instead of configTree (#22682) 
## Description

Meta Rehydration got regressed due to Datatree splitting
(https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/21547). Default value was
getting accessed from configTree instead of entityTree.



Fixes #22534

## 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
- [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
- [ ] 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: Tolulope Adetula <31691737+Tooluloope@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Tolulope <adetulatolu@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Aishwarya UR <aishwarya@appsmith.com>
 2023-04-27 17:41:40 +01:00
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>
 2023-04-07 13:11:36 +05:30
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
 2023-04-03 16:11:15 +05:30
arunvjn
f45afd9c8f
chore: modify getAllPaths utility method to only create child records for native objects (#21998) 2023-04-03 11:33:03 +05:30
Ankita Kinger
47c09cef92
chore: Code splitting FE files to support app level invites on Business edition (#21783) 
## Description

> Code splitting FE files to support app level invites on Business
edition.

Fixes [#21018](https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/21018)
[#21015](https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/21015)

## Type of change

- Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception)


## How Has This Been Tested?
> Nothing is affected on CE by this change.

- 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
- [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
 2023-03-29 17:07:06 +00:00
Apeksha Bhosale
d344853c4f
fix: During diff creation if value changes from undefined to string evaluation is getting skipped (#21710) 
## Description

When we change the table style to SHORT from DEFAULT, during diff as the
value changed from undefined to SHORT translated diff converts it to
NOOP and skips all dependent paths evaluation. Change here indicates if
any path changes from no value to any value evaluate path and all
dependent paths as well

- **MetaHOC changes**:- metaProperties is used to set the
`initialMetaState` for the metaHOC instead of using `this.props`.

Fixes #21708 

## 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
- 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: Rishabh-Rathod <rishabh.rathod@appsmith.com>
 2023-03-27 12:27:46 +05:30
Druthi Polisetty
93ab966e92
fix: ENTITY_BINDING_SUCCESS event added which is fired whenever there is a successful binding created by the user. (#21227) 
## Description
Adding another event called ENTITY_BINDING_SUCCESS which is fired
whenever there is a successful binding created by the user. The
BINDING_SUCCESS event was firing more events than actual binding and
therefore we created a new event to capture the right data.

Fixes #20468 

## 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
When table widget 'data table' is cleared, ENTITY_BINDING_SUCCESS event
is triggered
https://www.loom.com/share/280ab5165b684d59948ae1bc9fe0c074

Templates automatically triggers entitybindingsuccess
https://www.loom.com/share/16be5ae834b44d7bacc73a6d89a99fbd


## 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
 2023-03-24 15:45:11 +05:30
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>
 2023-03-20 16:34:02 +05:30
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
7cbb12af88,
we need to use `import type`. Otherwise, `babel-plugin-lodash` complains
that `LoDashStatic` is not a lodash function.

However, just using `import type` in the current codebase will give you
this:

<img width="962" alt="Screenshot 2023-03-08 at 17 45 59"
src="https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/2953267/223775744-407afa0c-e8b9-44a1-90f9-b879348da57f.png">

That’s because Prettier 1 can’t parse `import type` at all. To parse it,
we need to upgrade to Prettier 2.

### Why enforce `import type`?

Apart from just enabling `import type` support, this PR enforces
specifying `import type` everywhere it’s needed. (Developers will get
immediate TypeScript and ESLint errors when they forget to do so.)

I’m doing this because I believe `import type` improves DX and makes
refactorings easier.

Let’s say you had a few imports like below. Can you tell which of these
imports will increase the bundle size? (Tip: it’s not all of them!)

```ts
// app/client/src/workers/Linting/utils.ts
import { Position } from "codemirror";
import { LintError as JSHintError, LintOptions } from "jshint";
import { get, isEmpty, isNumber, keys, last, set } from "lodash";
```

It’s pretty hard, right?

What about now?

```ts
// app/client/src/workers/Linting/utils.ts
import type { Position } from "codemirror";
import type { LintError as JSHintError, LintOptions } from "jshint";
import { get, isEmpty, isNumber, keys, last, set } from "lodash";
```

Now, it’s clear that only `lodash` will be bundled.

This helps developers to see which imports are problematic, but it
_also_ helps with refactorings. Now, if you want to see where
`codemirror` is bundled, you can just grep for `import \{.*\} from
"codemirror"` – and you won’t get any type-only imports.

This also helps (some) bundlers. Upon transpiling, TypeScript erases
type-only imports completely. In some environment (not ours), this makes
the bundle smaller, as the bundler doesn’t need to bundle type-only
imports anymore.

## Type of change

- Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception)


## How Has This Been Tested?

This was tested to not break the build.

### 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
- [ ] 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: Satish Gandham <hello@satishgandham.com>
Co-authored-by: Satish Gandham <satish.iitg@gmail.com>
 2023-03-16 17:11:47 +05:30
Favour Ohanekwu
9483e75db4
fix: Create entries for new reactive nodes in dependencyMap (#20633) 
## Description

### Cause of issue
When a reactive node was newly added (a possible change from `undefined`
to a valid value), the `dependency map` was not updated.

This PR :

- Fixes this issue by handling all possible cases of a NEW_EVENT
-  Cleans up the logic to update the dependency map

Fixes #20401 



## Type of change

- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)


## How Has This Been Tested?
- Jest unit tests

### 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:
- [ ] Test plan has been approved by relevant developers
- [ ] 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
 2023-03-01 08:40:52 +01:00
Favour Ohanekwu
a49a3212f4
fix: incorrect jsfunction diff (#20895) 
## Description

Cause of issue
During evaluation, JS Functions are stored as String objects, rather
than string literals. This was done to allow us to add a ".data"
property to it.

Solution
Before translating diffs, String objects should be converted to
literals, and separated from the ".data" field



Fixes #20893 


## 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
- [ ] 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
 2023-02-24 18:51:36 +05:30