## Description
This PR enabled IDE toolbar for cypress.
Fixes#37217
## 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/12115693818>
> Commit: f2af8705e91af400b3a80f6684cce7fb487f1ca3
> <a
href="https://internal.appsmith.com/app/cypress-dashboard/rundetails-65890b3c81d7400d08fa9ee5?branch=master&workflowId=12115693818&attempt=2"
target="_blank">Cypress dashboard</a>.
> Tags: `@tag.All`
> Spec:
> <hr>Mon, 02 Dec 2024 12:19:38 UTC
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: Cypress test results -->
## Communication
Should the DevRel and Marketing teams inform users about this change?
- [ ] Yes
- [x] No
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai
-->
## Summary by CodeRabbit
- **New Features**
- Introduced a new feature flag `release_actions_redesign_enabled` to
enhance user experience.
- **Bug Fixes**
- Updated method calls in various test cases to improve consistency and
reliability in interactions, specifically renaming methods related to
data sources and queries.
- Improved error handling and validation in tests for MongoDB query
functionalities.
- **Documentation**
- Enhanced test coverage and assertions for various functionalities,
including API actions, Google Sheets queries, and JavaScript function
execution.
- **Style**
- Updated CSS selectors for improved consistency and maintainability
across components and test cases.
- **Tests**
- Refactored multiple test cases to utilize new helper methods,
improving code clarity and reducing direct DOM manipulation.
- Enhanced visual tests for JSEditor and improved interaction with the
run button.
- Added new assertions and enhanced the structure of tests for various
components, including API response handling and widget interactions.
- Streamlined interaction with the settings toolbar in various test
cases by encapsulating functionality within the `PluginActionForm`
class.
- Introduced new `data-testid` attributes across various components to
enhance testability.
- **Chores**
- Removed unused imports and streamlined method calls for better
performance and readability.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
## Description
It is for increasing test coverage with tags
Fixes #`36929`
## 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/11399781852>
> Commit: 9f238070acaf07cb674cb5e1cdd0171e2d671bb3
> <a
href="https://internal.appsmith.com/app/cypress-dashboard/rundetails-65890b3c81d7400d08fa9ee5?branch=master&workflowId=11399781852&attempt=2"
target="_blank">Cypress dashboard</a>.
> Tags: `@tag.All`
> Spec:
> <hr>Fri, 18 Oct 2024 09:35:03 UTC
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: Cypress test results -->
## Communication
Should the DevRel and Marketing teams inform users about this change?
- [ ] Yes
- [x] No
## Description
This PR temporarily removes the unauthorised Google Sheets method to
ensure users are only shown methods that would work and avoid causing
confusion.
- The feature flag wasn't used here as the form JSON config's method
field does not support hidden fields using feature flag and we avoided
writing a logic specifically to remove the field from JSON before
sending it as once the other methods get authorised again, we won't need
the feature flag again
Fixes#35523
## Automation
/test gsheet
### 🔍 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/10789501829>
> Commit: 040643a4d4ed4f2467a0af5733f4015a92d74e26
> <a
href="https://internal.appsmith.com/app/cypress-dashboard/rundetails-65890b3c81d7400d08fa9ee5?branch=master&workflowId=10789501829&attempt=1"
target="_blank">Cypress dashboard</a>.
> Tags: `@tag.GSheet`
> Spec:
> <hr>Tue, 10 Sep 2024 09:37:24 UTC
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: Cypress test results -->
## Communication
Should the DevRel and Marketing teams inform users about this change?
- [ ] Yes
- [x] No
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai
-->
## Summary by CodeRabbit
- **New Features**
- Simplified authorization options for Google Sheets integration, now
limited to read and write access for selected sheets only.
- **Bug Fixes**
- Updated integration tests to reflect the removal of outdated Google
Sheets permission options, ensuring tests align with current
authorization constraints.
- **Tests**
- Temporarily skipped multiple test suites related to Google Sheets
functionality to streamline testing and focus on relevant tests.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
## Description
- This PR fixes the Ghseet tests failing in CI due to Homepage revamp
changes
#### Type of change
- Script fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
## Testing
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [X] Cypress CI runs
## Checklist:
#### QA activity:
- [X] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after Cypress tests were reviewed
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai
-->
## Summary by CodeRabbit
- **New Features**
- Enhanced the app creation process by ensuring the correct workspace is
selected beforehand across various scenarios.
- Modified the `specPattern` array in `cypress_ci_hosted.config.ts` to
include new paths related to GSheet tests.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
## Description
- Fix for gsheet failures
- Renamed "gsheet" datasource to "gsheet-all" to make it unique
#### Type of change
- Cypress change
## Testing
>
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [x] Cypress
## Checklist:
#### QA activity:
- [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after Cypress tests were reviewed
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai
-->
## Summary by CodeRabbit
- **Refactor**
- Updated the data source reference for improved integration with Google
Sheets.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
## Description
> Adding tags to the existing test cases
Run GSheet test cases - `/ok-to-test tags="@tag.GSheet"`
Run JS test cases - ` /ok-to-test tags="@tag.JS"`
Run IDE test cases - ` /ok-to-test tags="@tag.IDE"`
Run Binding test cases - ` /ok-to-test tags="@tag.Binding"`
Few datasource testcases (tags are added to few) using - ` /ok-to-test
tags="@tag.Datasource"`
To run both GSheet and Datasource tagged testcases -` /ok-to-test
tags="@tag.Datasource,@tag.GSheet"`
To run both Binding and IDE tagged testcases - ` /ok-to-test
tags="@tag.Binding,@tag.IDE"`
To run both Binding, IDE, JS tagged testcases - ` /ok-to-test
tags="@tag.Binding,@tag.IDE,@tag.JS"`
#### Type of change
- Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception)
## Testing
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [x] Manual
- [x] Cypress
#### Test Plan
> ok to test with tags added
## 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 test suite categorization with the addition of metadata tags
for improved filtering and organization.
- **Refactor**
- Reorganized test suite structures for clarity and maintainability.
- Updated test descriptions and assertions for better test coverage.
- **Bug Fixes**
- Modified test cases to include additional validation steps for bug fix
verification.
- **Documentation**
- Updated test suite descriptions with new tags to reflect changes in
testing strategies.
- **Chores**
- Adjusted file paths for test specifications to align with the updated
testing focus.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
## Description
- Added tests for import gsheet apps for all the access levels
- Added tests for app level import for gsheet apps for all the access
levels
- Added test to verify placeholder text for insert one/many cases
- Fixed flakiness in Misc_spec.ts and WidgetBinging cases.
- Excluded elastic search spec from the hosted cypress config file
#### Type of change
- Cypress tests
- Cypress config file changes
## Testing
>
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [x] Cypress
## Checklist:
#### QA activity:
- [ ] [Speedbreak
features](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#speedbreakers-)
have been covered
- [ ] Test plan covers all impacted features and [areas of
interest](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#areas-of-interest-)
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by project stakeholders and other
QA members
- [ ] Manually tested functionality on DP
- [ ] We had an implementation alignment call with stakeholders post QA
Round 2
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by SDET/manual QA
- [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after Cypress tests were reviewed
- [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after JUnit tests were reviewed
## Description
- Fix gsheet tests
- Fix workflows to not upload the result file in case of success
#### Type of change
- spec file changes
- Workflow file changes
## Testing
>
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [x] Cypress
## Checklist:
#### QA activity:
- [ ] [Speedbreak
features](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#speedbreakers-)
have been covered
- [ ] Test plan covers all impacted features and [areas of
interest](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#areas-of-interest-)
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by project stakeholders and other
QA members
- [ ] Manually tested functionality on DP
- [ ] We had an implementation alignment call with stakeholders post QA
Round 2
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by SDET/manual QA
- [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after Cypress tests were reviewed
- [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after JUnit tests were reviewed
## Description
This PR fixes the issue with filter format in gsheet query creation:
The issue occurs when say the spreadsheet has data in the following
format:
<img width="258" alt="Screenshot 2023-08-31 at 3 09 03 PM"
src="https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/assets/30018882/88f8fdae-4223-468a-b05d-04fd8e9841dc">
Now if we write a query with where clause to to fetch all records with
Id < 3, it returns first two records as expected. Now if we change the
filter format to cell range and define cell range as b2:b4, It should
return `Name: test1 test2 test3`, but instead it throws error, because
it first filters out data based on cell range provided, and post that it
checks if the where conditions are defined in actionConfig and applies
that on the result set to filter data. In above example result set would
be `Name: test1 test2 test3` and it tries to apply the where clause
condition of `Id < 2`
In order to solve the issue, we need to apply where conditions only when
filter format is `Where Clause`.
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes#25447
> if no issue exists, please create an issue and ask the maintainers
about this first
>
>
#### Media
> A video or a GIF is preferred. when using Loom, don’t embed because it
looks like it’s a GIF. instead, just link to the video
>
>
#### Type of change
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
>
>
>
## Testing
>
#### How Has This Been Tested?
> Please describe the tests that you ran to verify your changes. Also
list any relevant details for your test configuration.
> Delete anything that is not relevant
- [x] Manual
- [ ] JUnit
- [ ] Jest
- [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
- [ ] 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:
- [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-)
- [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: “sneha122” <“sneha@appsmith.com”>
## Description
- Automated below queries for gsheet
1. Fetch Details
2. Insert one
3. Insert many
4. Update one
5. Update many
6. Fetch many
7. Delete One
- Added workflow to schedule run for gsheet automated tests on the
hosted instance
- Added a new cypress config file which will be used to run the gsheet
tests
- Added tests for folowing permission/scope options `All access`,
`selected access`, `Read/write | All google sheets` and `Read | All
google sheets`
- Added negative scenarios
- Added tests to verify widget binding for both suggested widget and
drag n drop widget for both selected and all access permission/scope
#### Type of change
- Cypress
## Testing
>
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [x] Cypress
>
>
## Checklist:
#### 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
