## Description
As auditLog related Code refactor for EE auditLog changes.
- Moving evalWorkerActionSaga to new file
- Created JSFunctionExecutionSaga & postJSFunctionExecutionLog
- logic for the functionality of it would be added in EE.
- Made required changes in the JSProxy file to send functionName as a
parameter.
## Type of change
Code refactor
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Manual
- Jest
- Cypress
## Checklist:
### Dev activity
- [x] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] My changes generate no new warnings
- [ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [x] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag
### QA activity:
- [ ] Test plan has been approved by relevant developers
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by QA
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by either SDET or
manual QA
- [ ] Organized project review call with relevant stakeholders after
Round 1/2 of QA
- [ ] Added Test Plan Approved label after reveiwing all Cypress test
- Integrates Date picker component inside table's date column
- Enables edit mode for date type column in table widget
- Adds all the required Property controls for date picker
- Builds the user flow for date column editing in table widget
### Description
Fixes [#198](https://github.com/appsmithorg/cloud-services/issues/198)
Media
https://www.loom.com/share/9f22ca26663b465190d50b80d77d8bfd
## 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
- [ ] 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
## Description
While building the application, there was a warning about outdated browserlist. This PR updates that and removes that warning.
Media
Warning
No warning
## Type of change
- Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception)
## 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
* Added Library modifications in git status modal.
* Removed segment from recommended libraries.
* Added AWS-SDK.
* Added Papa parse 5.
* Added Appwrite.
* Removed the URL regex that checks to see if the URL ends with .js
* Changed supabase library URL to one that works with Appsmith.
* Added animation to libraries section in explorer.
Fixes#19691Fixes#19646
## Description
We recently closed a feat-#14231 where we enabled our developers to use
the hidden fields from JSON form in form data. These hidden fields will
point to source data. I have made a change to the label of the field,
previously it was "Use source data" which was unclear as to why "Use
source data" instead we are going to use "Show hidden fields in data"
which on hover will reveal more contextual information on how this field
works.
Had to keep the name short since property pane fields can't be too
lengthy, but wanted to do enough to add more meaning to this property.
Fixes#19577
## Type of change
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Manual
### 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
- [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
- [ ] 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: Ashit Rath <ashit@appsmith.com>
## Description
Adds a description field to the PageDTO so that we can add a short
description of a page. This will be used to fill the meta tags for
internal use case apps for better visibility on Google
Fixes#19572
## Type of change
- New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
Socket connection to the RTS server keep retrying the connection even
when it fails. This change will remove that old logic and add the config
on socket.io itself to have a limit on the number of times this
connection is made.
This will mean we will not get the constant error messages about
connection failure in the console when in dev mode
This PR:
- updates the react 16 to react 17
- replaces the underlying library for the map widget
- adds clustering of markers
- refactor code for map widget's component
## Description
Fixes#16946
## Type of change
- Breaking change
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Manually
### Test Plan
https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/issues/2149
### Issues raised during DP testing
1.
https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/19315#issuecomment-1378495845
## 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
- [ ] 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: Ashok Kumar M <35134347+marks0351@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Arsalan <arsalanyaldram0211@outlook.com>
Co-authored-by: rahulramesha <rahul@appsmith.com>
The introduction of MetaWidgets in
https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/15839 introduces a scenario
where widgets are newly added to the unevalTree but already have defined
meta values. These previously defined meta values have higher priority
and should not get overridden by default values.
Fixes https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/16926
## Type of change
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
- New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
## 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 fixes:
- When creating REST API query, if in the headers, we add text with
newline characters, and now if we switch to another page and come back
to this page again, we can see the new line characters have been lost
from API headers.
- This issue was also there in case API query parameters and when
setting API body with FORM_URLENCODED and MULTIPART_FORM_DATA types,
fixed here as well.
> Add a TL;DR when description is extra long (helps content team)
Fixes#18709 , #18744
> 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)
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Manual
- 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
- [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:
- [ ] 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: “sneha122” <“sneha@appsmith.com”>
## Description
To determine if a JSObject function is sync or async, we run a
`functionDeterminer.isFunctionAsync` check that actually runs the raw
user function, this way we find out if a trigger was present or not.
When running the raw user function internally, we should disable console
logs to make sure users don't see those logs.
TL;DR:- Changes in this PR disable the console log for the internal run
of JSObject functions.
Fixes https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/19533
## Type of change
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
## 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
- [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
- [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
## Description
- Fixed JSEditorComment_spec.js
## Type of change
- Flaky test fix
## 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: Trisha Anand <trisha@appsmith.com>
Co-authored-by: Nidhi <nidhi@appsmith.com>
Co-authored-by: Arpit Mohan <mohanarpit@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Sumit Kumar <sumit@appsmith.com>
Co-authored-by: ChandanBalajiBP <104058110+ChandanBalajiBP@users.noreply.github.com>
## Description
Cypress test cases for datasource autosave improvement
https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/4381:
Fixes#18518
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)
- This change requires a documentation update
## 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
- [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
Co-authored-by: “sneha122” <“sneha@appsmith.com”>
## Description
- Slider widgets were still using the `Label component from design
system package`. Replace it with the `Label component from
widgets/components`.
Fixes # (issue)
## Type of change
> Please delete options that are not relevant.
- 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
> 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
We need to upgrade `styled-components`, so that it will become easy to
upgrade to version 6.0 when it is out. This is because, v6.0 has an
important functionality which isn't available in today's version.
### Tasks completed
- Update Styled components to latest version.
- Prepare codebase by cleaning up the styled components functions that
will be deprecated in version 6
- We are still using the `withTheme` HOC, we should instead use the
`useTheme` hook (best practices)
- Remove the `AnyStyledComponent` type it is un-necessary and will be
deprecated
Fixes#19463
## Type of change
- Non breaking change. The application should work as before and should
not effect any visual elements or UI.
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Manual @appsmithorg/qa please refer to the test plan for areas of
interest.
- Cypress: All existing test cases must pass.
### Test Plan
- We need to do a sanity check on the Product Updates Modal, Release
section.
- We also need to do a sanity check on the Login, Signup, ResetPassword
pages.
- I think we can merge this Pull Request and continue with our weekly
regression, because there are no style changes in this Pull Request,
everything should work as expected.
## 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**
- The PR removes the empty password validation check for PostgreSQL
while creating a new data source.
- The JUnit test case is added for the same. Implemented using a
separate PostgreSQL container with Trust Authentication enabled for the
Same.
- Please note for testing from UI perspective we have to create a user
with Trust auth enabled to validate the above changes.
Fixes #14003
### **Type of Change**
- Bug Fix(non-breaking change which adds functionality)
### **How Has This Been Tested?**
- Manual
- JUnit TC added
### **Checklist**:
- [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
- [ ] My changes generate no new warnings
- [x] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [x] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag
### **QA activity:**
- [ ] Test plan has been approved by relevant developers
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by QA
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by either SDET or
manual QA
- [ ] Organized project review call with relevant stakeholders after
Round 1/2 of QA
- [ ] Added Test Plan Approved label after reveiwing all Cypress test
## Description
> Updating logic to push blank key value params based on manage access
for APIs.
Fixes [#19253](https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/19253)
## Type of change
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
## How Has This Been Tested?
> Followed the steps in the linked issue and it works now as expected.
- Manual
### Test Plan
> Add Testsmith test cases links that relate to 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
- [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
## Description
> Updating UI for invite modal when the user doesn't have share access
> TL;DR: This is GAC related change
Fixes [#19673](https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/19673)
## Type of change
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
## How Has This Been Tested?
> Tested locally based on steps provided in the connected issue. Works
as expected now. If there is no share access for the user because the
user is assigned only a custom role under GAC, then the user will not
see the invite from inside invite modal but will see the copy
application URL (always) & make public toggle (provided he has make
public access).
- Manual
### Test Plan
> Add Testsmith test cases links that relate to 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
- [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
Co-authored-by: Aishwarya UR <aishwarya@appsmith.com>
> Pull Request Template
>
> Use this template to quickly create a well written pull request.
Delete all quotes before creating the pull request.
## Description
This fixes a UX issue in the table v1 widget. Under the filters and
download button the border appear to be missing, this commit fixes it.
Fixes#18322
## Type of change
> Please delete options that are not relevant.
- 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
- [ ] 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
## Description
The segment initialization for the anonymous user is creating a race
condition and due to that two cypress test have become
flaky(ShareAppTests_spec.js and ApplicationURL_spec.js). Temporarily
commenting it out in this PR and will enable it after fixing the race
condition.
Media
> A video or a GIF is preferred. when using Loom, don’t embed it 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)
- 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
- [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:
- [ ] 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>
## Description
- This PR includes fixes for below specs to unblock CI:
- SetTimeout_spec.ts
- ForkApplication_spec.js
- ApplicationURL_spec.js
- ShareAppTests_spec.js
## Fixes
- CI run failures
## Type of change
- Script fix
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Cypress CI run
## 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
On User Home Page, we show `what's new` and that release items information use to be part of `/application/new` API. Now we are extracting release items info and creating new API for it which is `/application/releaseItems`.
## Description
We have updated the user tracking to use a rolling window. Now the
session starts when the user goes to the builder or viewer for the first
time and the subsequent activity tracking will be checked only after an
hour.
For anonymous users, we send the Segment anonymous id in the usage
calls. When the telemetry is off, we still initiate the segment, get the
id and then purge the analytics global object.
Fixed window (in release, as of now)- if the user starts a session at
01:15 pm, we take 01:00 pm as the session start time and we will check
for the next user activity at 2:00 pm.
rolling window (in this PR) - if the user starts a session at 01:15 pm,
we take 01:15 pm as the session start time and we will check for the
next user activity at 2:15 pm.
Fixes https://github.com/appsmithorg/cloud-services/issues/183
## Type of change
- New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Manual
### 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
- [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:
- [ ] 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
Since Usage & Billing is EE only, there are a few components which needs
to be code splitted. So code splitted those files and also added feature
flag for Usage & Billing.
TL;DR Code split usage and billing files
Fixes [#146](https://github.com/appsmithorg/cloud-services/issues/146)
## Type of change
> Please delete options that are not relevant.
- Code splitting
## 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
- [ ] 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
Related to #15538
To enable adding a new action only for EE.
- Moved `PLATFORM_FUNCTIONS` and related types
- Moved `NavigationSagas` and added payload type to use in EE
This PR fixes API query params from being truncated when a dynamic
binding expression is added to the API Url.
Fixes#16683
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Cypress
### Test Plan
> Add Testsmith test cases links that relate to this PR
### Issues raised during DP testing
> Link issues raised during DP testing for better visiblity and tracking
(copy link from comments dropped on this PR)
## Checklist:
### Dev activity
- [ ] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [ ] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [ ] My changes generate no new warnings
- [ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [ ] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag
### QA activity:
- [ ] Test plan has been approved by relevant developers
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by QA
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by either SDET or
manual QA
- [ ] Organized project review call with relevant stakeholders after
Round 1/2 of QA
- [ ] Added Test Plan Approved label after reveiwing all Cypress test
## Description
- Fixed below flaky tests
- Templates/Fork_Template_To_App_spec.js
- Templates/ForkTemplateToGitConnectedApp.js
- Templates/Fork_Template_Existing_app_spec.js
- Templates/Fork_Template_spec.js
- Onboarding/CreateNewApp_spec.js
- IDE/MaintainContext&Focus_spec.js
- Onboarding/GuidedTour_spec.js
- ThemingTests/Theme_MultiSelectWidget_spec.js
- Widgets/Tab/Tab_spec.js
- BugTests/Autocomplete_JS_spec.ts
## Type of change
- Flaky test fix
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Cypress test runs
## Checklist:
### QA activity:
- [x] 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
- Add connection pool to MySQL
- Fix JUnit TC failures due to Spring upgrade
- Fix Cypress TC failures due to change in the MySQL plugin code
- Remove `Preferred` SSL option
## Description
code refactor for jsFunction audit log
This is PR to support the changes in
https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith-ee/pull/941/files
## Type of change
chore
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Manual
- Jest
- Cypress
### Test Plan
No test plan required.
### 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: Ohans <fohanekwu@gmail.com>
## Description
Starts work on the Multi Pane IDE that would be behind a feature flag
right now. We will continue work on this behind the scenes
> New shiny Multi Pane layout that will be unwrapped after a few months
Fixes#19210
## Type of change
- New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
- Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing
functionality to not work as expected)
## 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 includes Changes for Drag and drop Improvements, That includes,
- Resizing dragging widgets along Container edges.
- Initially resize widgets against Container/Droptarget widgets.
- While holding close to Container/Droptarget widgets for half a second,
start to reflow the widget.
Fixes#19139Fixes#12892
Media
https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/71900764/209154834-66acecbb-2df8-4598-86d5-4fe7843dd21b.mp4
## Type of change
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
- New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Manual
- 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
- [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:
- [ ] 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
Add segment's `anonymousId` as a header in all API calls.
cached id ->
[details](https://segment.com/docs/connections/sources/catalog/libraries/website/javascript/identity/#segment-id-persistence)
On Page load actions:
- If segment is enabled:
- and cached id exists -> trigger with cached id
- if cached id doesn’t exist, we wait for max 2 seconds.
- if segment init is success -> trigger with anonymous id
- if failed/delayed -> trigger without anonymous id
- If segment is disabled we don’t wait at all and anonymous id is not
sent.
Signed-off-by: Shrikant Sharat Kandula <shrikant@appsmith.com>
Co-authored-by: Shrikant Sharat Kandula <shrikant@appsmith.com>
Co-authored-by: Hetu Nandu <hetu@appsmith.com>
## Description
- Add resolution for json5 dependency to resolve package
vulnerabilities.
- Remove babel-plugin-styled-components because it was unused.
- Related to `react-scripts` , if everything builds and dev server is
running as expected we have no issues.
Fixes#19448
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.
- Non-breaking change.
## 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
- All tests need to pass.
- Does not need a regression.
### 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>
Co-authored-by: Anubhav <anubhav@appsmith.com>
## Description
Adds code commenting in JS objects code editor and JS fields. Users can
use `Cmd + /` on Mac and `Ctrl + /` on other systems to
comment/uncomment code now.
Fixes#9369
## Type of change
- New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Manual
- Jest
### Test Plan
- [x] https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/issues/2120
- [x] https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/issues/2121
- [x] https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/issues/2122
### Issues raised during DP testing
- [ ]
https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/18667#issuecomment-1348354145
## 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:
- [ ] 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>
## Description
Added default value while updating markers for child nodes
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)
- This change requires a documentation update
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Manual
-
### 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
> Updating the input field placeholder on app invite users modal
Fixes [#19506](https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/19506)
## Type of change
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
## How Has This Been Tested?
> Visited the edit page of an application and clicked on the share modal
to check the input field placeholder on the invite modal. Group(s) is no
longer seen on the release cloud, as expected.
- 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
## Description
When a new user who signs up, creates datasource and tests it before
saving it, then the test API is throwing 404 error. This PR fixes that
issue
Fixes#19426
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)
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Manual
- 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:
- [ ] 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: “sneha122” <“sneha@appsmith.com”>
## Description
Prior to this PR, we were calculating whether a cell has overflowing
content or not when the table gets loaded, to show a tooltip on hover.
But this is affecting the performance of the table, now we're
calculating for a cell only when the user hovers the cell.
Fixes#18995
## Type of change
- chore
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Manual
- 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
- [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
Co-authored-by: Aishwarya UR <aishwarya@appsmith.com>
## Description
Added analytic event for google sheet authorization failure. This will help us in understanding percentage of use cases where users are not authorizing their google sheet datasource
> Add a TL;DR when description is extra long (helps content team)
Fixes#18980
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)
## 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: “sneha122” <“sneha@appsmith.com”>
## Description
When fields is hidden in a json form, those fields value are no longer
available on the widget formData. This implementation is meant to give
dev the options to set if they want to use sourceData that still
contains hidden fields value as fallback when some fields are hidden.
### Step To Reproduce
1. Drop a JSON form
2. create a field and its value is present in the Jsonform1.formdata
3. make this field invisible and its value is not present in the
formdata anymore.
4. do the same thing with a simple form, the field is present regardless
of the field visiibility.
NB: This would require updating the Appsmith Documentation
Fixes#14231
## Type of change
- New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
- This change requires a documentation update
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Cypress Tests
## 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
