## Description
- Added ci-debugging.yml to enable local debugging
- Modularised docker image building with build-docker-image.yml
## Type of change
- ci-debugging.yml
- build-docker-image.yml
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Manual
## Checklist:
### QA activity:
- [ ] Test plan has been approved by relevant developers
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by QA
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by either SDET or
manual QA
- [ ] Organized project review call with relevant stakeholders after
Round 1/2 of QA
- [ ] Added Test Plan Approved label after reveiwing all Cypress test
## Description
- This PR updates the ci-test.yml file to empty the failed_spec_ci
folder which still holds the previoulsy (or attempt-1) failures & hence
prints the attempt-1 failures also in the attempt-2 git comment in PRs.
## Type of change
- ci-test.yml file update
## Checklist:
### QA activity:
- [X] Added Test Plan Approved label after reviewing all changes
## Description
- This PR changes the mapping port of GITEA TED form 3000 to 3001
because while building client/server locally Appsmith uses
localhost:3000
## Type of change
- Script yml update (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
## Checklist:
### QA activity:
- [X] Added Test Plan Approved label after reviewing the changes
## Description
Add ci test check command
Fixes # (issue)
Media
## Type of change
- New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Manual
### Test Plan
### Issues raised during DP testing
## Checklist:
### Dev activity
- [X] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [X] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [X] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [x] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [X] My changes generate no new warnings
- [X] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [x] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [X] PR is being merged under a feature flag
### QA activity:
- [ ] Test plan has been approved by relevant developers
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by QA
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by either SDET or
manual QA
- [ ] Organized project review call with relevant stakeholders after
Round 1/2 of QA
- [ ] Added Test Plan Approved label after reveiwing all Cypress test
---------
Co-authored-by: Aishwarya-U-R <91450662+Aishwarya-U-R@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Aishwarya UR <aishwarya@appsmith.com>
## Description
- This PR includes yml file update to remove the duplicate entry of
failing specs in github comments during PR oktotest runs
## Type of change
- Script fix
## Checklist:
### QA activity:
- [X] Added Test Plan Approved label after reviewing all changes
## Description
- Updated the pat to access appsmithorg/ci-oldstack
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Cypress
## Checklist:
### QA activity:
- [ ] Test plan has been approved by relevant developers
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by QA
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by either SDET or
manual QA
- [ ] Organized project review call with relevant stakeholders after
Round 1/2 of QA
- [ ] Added Test Plan Approved label after reveiwing all Cypress test
## Description
- Specifying the branch name to pull from ci-oldstack in ci-test.yml
## Type of change
- ci-test.yml
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Cypress
## Checklist:
### QA activity:
- [ ] Test plan has been approved by relevant developers
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by QA
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by either SDET or
manual QA
- [ ] Organized project review call with relevant stakeholders after
Round 1/2 of QA
- [ ] Added Test Plan Approved label after reveiwing all Cypress test
## Description
- Updated ci-test.yml to pull the old stack from a private repo instead
of S3
## Type of change
- ci-test.yml
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Cypress
## Checklist:
### QA activity:
- [ ] Test plan has been approved by relevant developers
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by QA
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by either SDET or
manual QA
- [ ] Organized project review call with relevant stakeholders after
Round 1/2 of QA
- [ ] Added Test Plan Approved label after reveiwing all Cypress test
## Description
- This PR Stops SSH which is run on port 22 for enabling it for Local
Gitea support from TED
## Type of change
- Ci-test yml file update:
## Checklist
### QA activity:
- [X] Added Test Plan Approved label after reviewing all changes
## Description
- This PR reverts https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/20471
## Type of change
- ci-test yml file update
## Checklist:
### QA activity:
- [X] Added Test Plan Approved label after reviewing all changes
## Description
This PR reverts https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/20471
## Type of change
- ci-test yml file update
## Checklist:
### QA activity:
- [X] Added Test Plan Approved label after reviewing all changes test
## Description
- This PR reverts #20471
## Type of change
- ci-test yml file update
## Checklist:
### QA activity:
- [X] Added Test Plan Approved label after reveiwing all changes
## Description
- This PR Stops SSH which is run on port 22 for enabling it for Local
Gitea support from TED
## Type of change
- Script update
## Checklist:
### QA activity:
- [X] Added Test Plan Approved label after reviewing the changes
## Description
- This PR adds the 3000 port mapping for the TED GITEA support for the
cypress tests
## Type of change
- Script update
## Checklist:
### QA activity:
- [X] Test plan has been peer reviewed by QA
- [X] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by either SDET or
manual QA
## Description
- Updated the if condition to run the ci-test
## Type of change
- ci-test.yml
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Cypress
## Checklist:
### QA activity:
- [ ] Test plan has been approved by relevant developers
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by QA
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by either SDET or manual QA
- [ ] Organized project review call with relevant stakeholders after Round 1/2 of QA
- [ ] Added Test Plan Approved label after reveiwing all Cypress test
## Description
- Modularising the ci-test
## Type of change
- Workflow files
## Checklist:
### QA activity:
- [ ] Test plan has been approved by relevant developers
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by QA
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by either SDET or
manual QA
- [ ] Organized project review call with relevant stakeholders after
Round 1/2 of QA
- [ ] Added Test Plan Approved label after reveiwing all Cypress test
## Description
> Add back setup of ui nginx environment using docker while setting up
tests
Fixes # [(issue)](https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/20124)
> if no issue exists, please create an issue and ask the maintainers
about this first
## Type of change
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Manual
## Checklist:
### Dev activity
- [x] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [ ] My changes generate no new warnings
- [ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [ ] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag
### QA activity:
- [ ] Test plan has been approved by relevant developers
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by QA
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by either SDET or
manual QA
- [ ] Organized project review call with relevant stakeholders after
Round 1/2 of QA
- [ ] Added Test Plan Approved label after reveiwing all Cypress test
## Description
- This PR includes the script updates for connecting to TED Git instead
of actual Github for running tests
## Type of change
- New script changes to connect to TED Git
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Cypress CI runs
## Checklist:
### QA activity:
- [X] 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
- [X] Organized project review call with relevant stakeholders after
Round 1/2 of QA
- [X] Added Test Plan Approved label after reveiwing all Cypress test
## Description
- This PR skips the upgrade spec until its fully functional
## Type of change
- Script fix
## Checklist:
### QA activity:
- [X] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by either SDET or
manual QA
Set the pr number as 0 for push event.
> Pull Request Template
>
> Use this template to quickly create a well written pull request.
Delete all quotes before creating the pull request.
## Description
> 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
> Add a TL;DR when description is extra long (helps content team)
Fixes # (issue)
> if no issue exists, please create an issue and ask the maintainers
about this first
Media
> A video or a GIF is preferred. when using Loom, don’t embed because it
looks like it’s a GIF. instead, just link to the video
## Type of change
> Please delete options that are not relevant.
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
- New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
- Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing
functionality to not work as expected)
- Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception)
- This change requires a documentation update
## How Has This Been Tested?
> Please describe the tests that you ran to verify your changes. Provide
instructions, so we can reproduce.
> Please also list any relevant details for your test configuration.
> Delete anything that is not important
- Manual
- Jest
- Cypress
### Test Plan
> Add Testsmith test cases links that relate to this PR
### Issues raised during DP testing
> Link issues raised during DP testing for better visiblity and tracking
(copy link from comments dropped on this PR)
## Checklist:
### Dev activity
- [ ] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [ ] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [ ] My changes generate no new warnings
- [ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [ ] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag
### QA activity:
- [ ] Test plan has been approved by relevant developers
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by QA
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by either SDET or
manual QA
- [ ] Organized project review call with relevant stakeholders after
Round 1/2 of QA
- [ ] Added Test Plan Approved label after reveiwing all Cypress test
## Description
- This PR moves all specs from slim to fat container to run tests underneath it
- Fat has the actual libraries that are being shipping to customers, hence this PR
- Also includes moving Git tests from using GitHub to Gitea
## Type of change
- New run (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Cypress CI Fat runs
## Checklist:
### QA activity:
- [X] 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
- [X] Organized project review call with relevant stakeholders after Round 1/2 of QA
- [X] Added Test Plan Approved label after reveiwing all Cypress test
Co-authored-by: yatinappsmith <84702014+yatinappsmith@users.noreply.github.com>
## Description
- This PR removes the Upgrade workflow from being triggered in oktotest
## Type of change
- Yml Script fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
## Description
- Appsmith Upgrade Test
## Type of change
- Cypress
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Cypress
## Checklist:
### 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>
Add JAVA setup step to perf tests in test build workflow.
This is a possible fix for perf tests on running because backend server
was not up.
Co-authored-by: Satish Gandham <hello@satishgandham.com>
## Description
Hides the list of failed tests behind a spoiler to avoid making PR pages
very long
Fixes # N/A
## Type of change
- Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception)
## Description
Reverts the changes made to perf job in ui-build-workflow as the perf tests are getting skipped.
Co-authored-by: Satish Gandham <hello@satishgandham.com>
This upgrade takes care of our move to JDK 17, Spring Boot 3.0.1 and a
few other security upgrades along the way.
Fixes#18993
TODO:
- [x] Check CI changes for Java 17
- [x] Check vulnerability report
- [x] Mongock needs an upgrade
- [x] Add JVM args at all possible places for exposing java.time module
- [x] Add type adapters everywhere / use the same config for type
adapters everywhere
Remove perf-tests from /ok-to-test temporarily.
**Why**
Switch to github runners is causing an issue with perf tests, disabling until that is resolved.
Co-authored-by: Satish Gandham <hello@satishgandham.com>
## Description
Ci fix run result due to deprecated
Fixes # (issue)
Media
## Type of change
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
## How Has This Been Tested?
code reivew
### 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:
- [ ] Test plan has been approved by relevant developers
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by QA
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by either SDET or manual QA
- [ ] Organized project review call with relevant stakeholders after Round 1/2 of QA
- [ ] Added Test Plan Approved label after reveiwing all Cypress test
## Description
Comment failing tests to PR
Fixes #
## Type of change
- New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
## How Has This Been Tested?
Code review. Tested in local fork
### 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
- [X] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [X] My changes generate no new warnings
- [X] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works
- [X] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [X] PR is being merged under a feature flag
### QA activity:
- [ ] Test plan has been approved by relevant developers
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by QA
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by either SDET or manual QA
- [ ] Organized project review call with relevant stakeholders after Round 1/2 of QA
- [ ] Added Test Plan Approved label after reveiwing all Cypress test
* Fix perf test failure due to a wrong step added earlier
* Remove all the steps added to make perf tests work on EE
Co-authored-by: Satish Gandham <hello@satishgandham.com>
## Description
- This PR adds a new fat-migration.yml file which will run all cases in fat container instead of dev.app.appsmith
- This PR will not affect any existing Push/Workflow dispatches as its a separate action file
- Moving to fat container will not be put into action until RBAC is live - so as to not trigger any new challenge at last minute
## Type of change
- New .yml file
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Cypress CI runs
## Checklist:
### QA activity:
- [X] 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
- [X] Organized project review call with relevant stakeholders after Round 1/2 of QA
- [X] Added Test Plan Approved label after reveiwing all Cypress test
* - Add missing env variables to fix perf tests failures in EE
* - Delete source maps on CI only for EE
* - Add the additional steps that might be required for running perf tests on EE
* Update if condition
* Update if condition
* Switch to bash from using sh in build.sh
* Check if the server started later
* Update the check to see if the server has started
Co-authored-by: Satish Gandham <hello@satishgandham.com>
* Rearrange client build steps
* Remove PR from the run meta insert query
* Add repo to the query
Co-authored-by: Satish Gandham <hello@satishgandham.com>
* - Add S3 credentials to environment
- Change the workflow name
- Create performance run meta data record at the begining.
* Fix a typo
* Fix a typo
* Store DB credentials as plain values instead of JSON
* Fix SQL insert query
* Add missing secrets
* Continue even if the meta creation fails
* Fix SQL insert command
* Rename workflow
Co-authored-by: Satish Gandham <hello@satishgandham.com>
* Add option to run only perf tests on github
* Add new line at the end of the file
* - Run the artifacts step even on failure
- Add link to the perf run details
- Remove the perf comment on the PR
Co-authored-by: Satish Gandham <hello@satishgandham.com>
## Description
- This PR includes changes for starting rts server for AST changes to take effect
## Type of change
- yml file updates
## Checklist:
- [X] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [X] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [X] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [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
## Description
- This PR includes changes for starting rts server for AST changes to take effect
## Type of change
- yml file updates
## Checklist:
- [X] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [X] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [X] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [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
* update rts logic to use updated shared AST logic
* Make changes to naming conventions
* Add test cases for RTS and rename ast functions
* Add running jest test to RTS workflow
* Install dependencies and then trigger jest tests in workflow
* Close server connection after test ends
* Remove logs
* Improve jest test descriptions
Fix ci cache & rts build for push workflow
## Description
Fix ci cache & rts build for push workflow
## Type of change
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
## How Has This Been Tested?
code review
## Checklist:
- [X] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [X] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [X] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [X] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [X] My changes generate no new warnings
- [X] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works
- [X] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
## Description
Fix ui-test cache
Fixes # (issue)
## Type of change
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
## How Has This Been Tested?
Code review
## Checklist:
- [X] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [X] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [X] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [X] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [X] My changes generate no new warnings
- [X] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works
- [X] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
## Description
Fix ui-test cache
Fixes # (issue)
## Type of change
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
## How Has This Been Tested?
Code review
## Checklist:
- [X] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [X] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [X] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [X] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [X] My changes generate no new warnings
- [X] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works
- [X] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
## Description
The problem with the RTS workflow after the induction of AST parsing was that while copying the `node_modules`, Ubuntu doesn't follow the symlink and copy the content. It simply copies the symlink as is. This causes issues for RTS service to start.
## Type of change
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Personal repository
## Checklist:
- [ ] 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
## Description
The depot docker step wasn't initialized. This was causing Docker builds to fail.
## Type of change
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Relying on CI
## Checklist:
- [ ] 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
Refer to #16020 for details. This PR has been opened since we could not modify the previous PR since it's a contribution by an external contributor.
Co-authored-by: kylegalbraith <kyle.galbraith459@gmail.com>
