Protei/PromucFlow_constructor
2
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions 2 Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
16,444 Commits 1 Branch 0 Tags 507 MiB
c655aea15c
Commit Graph

89 Commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
Aman Agarwal
cc620b3ab3
feat: removing delete multiple apps feature (#30661) 
## Description
Removing the bulk delete applications feature as it not generally used
by many users and this was creating some UI conflicts rather than giving
us some valuable output.

Please follow this thread for more context :
https://theappsmith.slack.com/archives/C02Q4B2AGM8/p1706249168968689

#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes #30660 
> if no issue exists, please create an issue and ask the maintainers
about this first
>
>
#### Media
> A video or a GIF is preferred. when using Loom, don’t embed because it
looks like it’s a GIF. instead, just link to the video
>
>
#### Type of change
> Please delete options that are not relevant.
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
- New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
- Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing
functionality to not work as expected)
- Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception)
- This change requires a documentation update
>
>
>
## Testing
>
#### How Has This Been Tested?
> Please describe the tests that you ran to verify your changes. Also
list any relevant details for your test configuration.
> Delete anything that is not relevant
- [ ] Manual
- [ ] JUnit
- [ ] Jest
- [ ] Cypress
>
>
#### Test Plan
> Add Testsmith test cases links that relate to this PR
>
>
#### Issues raised during DP testing
> Link issues raised during DP testing for better visiblity and tracking
(copy link from comments dropped on this PR)
>
>
>
## Checklist:
#### Dev activity
- [ ] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [ ] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [ ] My changes generate no new warnings
- [ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [ ] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag


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


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

- **Refactor**
- Streamlined the application deletion process to handle multiple
deletions more efficiently.
- **Bug Fixes**
- Removed redundant code and unused features related to the multiple
selection and deletion of applications.
- **Chores**
- Cleaned up various files by removing unused imports, constants, and
state variables.
- **Documentation**
- Adjusted code comments and documentation to reflect removal of
multiple application deletion features and related UI elements.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
 2024-01-29 19:51:01 +05:30
Ankit Srivastava
a45dcfa61f
feat: Homepage experience v2 changes (#29282) 
> Pull Request Template
>
> Use this template to quickly create a well written pull request.
Delete all quotes before creating the pull request.
>
## Description
> Add a TL;DR when description is extra long (helps content team)
>
> Please include a summary of the changes and which issue has been
fixed. Please also include relevant motivation
> and context. List any dependencies that are required for this change
>
> Links to Notion, Figma or any other documents that might be relevant
to the PR
>
>
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes # (issue number)
> if no issue exists, please create an issue and ask the maintainers
about this first
>
>
#### Media
> A video or a GIF is preferred. when using Loom, don’t embed because it
looks like it’s a GIF. instead, just link to the video
>
>
#### Type of change
> Please delete options that are not relevant.
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
- New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
- Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing
functionality to not work as expected)
- Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception)
- This change requires a documentation update
>
>
>
## Testing
>
#### How Has This Been Tested?
> Please describe the tests that you ran to verify your changes. Also
list any relevant details for your test configuration.
> Delete anything that is not relevant
- [ ] Manual
- [ ] JUnit
- [ ] Jest
- [ ] Cypress
>
>
#### Test Plan
> Add Testsmith test cases links that relate to this PR
>
>
#### Issues raised during DP testing
> Link issues raised during DP testing for better visiblity and tracking
(copy link from comments dropped on this PR)
>
>
>
## Checklist:
#### Dev activity
- [ ] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [ ] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [ ] My changes generate no new warnings
- [ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [ ] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag


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


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

- **New Features**
    - Added new workspace search functionality in the search bar.
    - Introduced a help button for user assistance.
- Implemented new UI components for workspace selection and management.
    - Enhanced application card with edit permission checks.
- Integrated workspace actions for creating and fetching workspaces
directly from the UI.

- **Improvements**
    - Improved workspace and application fetching logic.
    - Enhanced Global Search with updated import paths and logic.
- Refined the layout and styling of the applications page and sub-header
components.
- Optimized workspace-related sagas and reducers for better performance
and maintainability.

- **Bug Fixes**
- Fixed tooltip functionality in "Reconnect Datasources" within
templates.
    - Corrected test logic for forking templates and applications.
    - Updated Cypress test commands for consistency and reliability.
- Addressed issues with application URL test cases and workspace import
logic.

- **Documentation**
- Updated messages and constants related to workspace and application UI
elements for clearer user communication.

- **Chores**
- Cleaned up unused code and simplified selectors across various
components and tests.
- Refactored application and workspace selectors for improved code
organization.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->

---------

Co-authored-by: Dipyaman Biswas <dipyaman@appsmith.com>
Co-authored-by: Abhijeet <abhi.nagarnaik@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Nidhi <nidhi@appsmith.com>
Co-authored-by: Goutham Pratapa <goutham@appsmith.com>
Co-authored-by: Ankita Kinger <ankita@appsmith.com>
Co-authored-by: albinAppsmith <87797149+albinAppsmith@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Shrikant Sharat Kandula <shrikant@appsmith.com>
Co-authored-by: Nayan <nayan@appsmith.com>
Co-authored-by: Rishabh Rathod <rishabh.rathod@appsmith.com>
 2024-01-25 19:11:48 +05:30
albinAppsmith
ced4ffa179
fix: Remove guided tour code (#30387) 
## Description

Removed the guided tour code.

#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/30332

#### Type of change

- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
- Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception)

## Testing
>
#### How Has This Been Tested?
> Please describe the tests that you ran to verify your changes. Also
list any relevant details for your test configuration.
> Delete anything that is not relevant
- [ ] Manual
- [ ] JUnit
- [ ] Jest
- [ ] Cypress
>
>
#### Test Plan
> Add Testsmith test cases links that relate to this PR
>
>
#### Issues raised during DP testing
> Link issues raised during DP testing for better visiblity and tracking
(copy link from comments dropped on this PR)
>
>
>
## Checklist:
#### Dev activity
- [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
- [ ] 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

- **Chores**
  - Streamlined onboarding process by removing guided tour features.
- Refined action and message management for a more intuitive user
experience.
  - Enhanced property controls generation for better user interaction.

- **Refactor**
- Simplified various components by removing unnecessary guided tour
logic.
  - Improved application and page sagas for more efficient operation.
  - Refined editor components for a smoother user interface.

- **Documentation**
  - Updated message constants for clearer user guidance.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
 2024-01-24 16:31:21 +05:30
Vemparala Surya Vamsi
ad68825818
feat: Frontend changes for consolidated-api with EE test case support (#30506) 2024-01-24 12:14:16 +05:30
Shrikant Sharat Kandula
92993cccef
chore: Remove unused services (#30292) 
I've been doing this in pieces bit by bit, not to rock the boat too much
too fast, but it's taking too long, and too much effort. Instead opting
for a rip-the-bandaid style, hopefully without the pain.
 2024-01-23 05:43:16 +05:30
Vemparala Surya Vamsi
8bb61d996a
chore: reverted consolidated api (#30314) 
## Description
Reverted consolidated api changes and also some CE related changes to
make it compatible with EE.
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Reverts  #29650 & #29939

#### Type of change

- Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception)
>
>
>
## Testing
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [ ] Manual
- [ ] JUnit
- [ ] Jest
- [x ] Cypress
>
>
#### Test Plan
> Add Testsmith test cases links that relate to this PR
>
>
#### Issues raised during DP testing
> Link issues raised during DP testing for better visiblity and tracking
(copy link from comments dropped on this PR)
>
>
>
## Checklist:
#### Dev activity
- [ ] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [ ] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [ ] My changes generate no new warnings
- [ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [ ] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag


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


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

## Summary by CodeRabbit

- **Refactor**
- Enhanced the reliability and efficiency of Cypress e2e tests by
adjusting wait conditions and assertions.
	- Simplified network request handling across various test cases.
- Updated test logic to align with changes in application data structure
and network requests.

- **Tests**
- Improved test stability for application import/export, Git sync, page
load behavior, and widget interactions.
- Refined mobile responsiveness tests to accurately validate layout
conversions and autofill behaviors.

- **Chores**
- Removed deprecated feature flags and code related to consolidated page
load functionality.
- Cleaned up unused parameters and simplified action payloads in Redux
actions.

- **Documentation**
	- Updated comments for clarity in test specifications.

- **Style**
	- Adjusted code styling for consistency across test suites.

- **Bug Fixes**
- Fixed data retrieval logic in tests to ensure correct data extraction
from API responses.

<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
 2024-01-16 10:16:48 +05:30
Vemparala Surya Vamsi
96701c343d
feat: Frontend changes for consolidated-api (#29933) 
## Description
Our objective in this pr is to improve the page load time of our
application by calling a consolidated-api which contains all the
resources to load our pages. This PR contains all the client side
changes to call the consolidated-api as well as feature flag related
changes.
Fixes #29650 & #29939
#### Type of change
- Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception)
## Testing
>
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [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
- [x] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [x] PR is being merged under a feature flag


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


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

- **Refactor**
- Updated network request aliases and response handling in end-to-end
tests.
- **New Features**
- Introduced a new API class `ConsolidatedPageLoadApi` for fetching
consolidated page load data.
- **Tests**
	- Enhanced testing for application URL navigation and data retrieval.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
 2024-01-15 10:00:29 +05:30
Ankita Kinger
9bc4c9711c
chore: Refactoring multiple environments to use editorId instead of appId (#29965) 
Reverts appsmithorg/appsmith#29942

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

- **Refactor**
- Streamlined the process for setting workspace and editor IDs across
various components and actions.
- Enhanced the route matching mechanism for improved navigation within
the app.

- **Bug Fixes**
- Corrected typos and variable naming inconsistencies to ensure clarity
and consistency in the codebase.

- **Style**
- Adjusted UI components for better accessibility, including the correct
use of Aria attributes.

- **Chores**
- Removed unused imports and code to clean up the codebase and improve
maintainability.

- **Documentation**
- Updated internal documentation to reflect changes in function
signatures and payload structures.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
 2024-01-03 20:39:34 +05:30
ashit-rath
73b3079a89
fix: Revert "chore: Refactoring multiple environments to use editorId instead of appId" (#29942) 
Reverts appsmithorg/appsmith#29873

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

## Summary by CodeRabbit

- **Refactor**
- Simplified the action and payload structures for setting workspace IDs
across various components and sagas.
- Streamlined environment configuration fetching and workspace ID
management.
- Removed unnecessary editor ID references and updated related
components to align with the new logic.
  - Enhanced code clarity in routing by using direct matching functions.

- **Bug Fixes**
- Fixed a typo in the state variable within the `SwitchEnvironment`
component.

- **Chores**
- Cleaned up unused imports and variables related to application and
editor IDs.

- **Style**
  - No visible style changes to report.

- **Documentation, Tests, Revert**
  - No changes in these categories to report.

<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
 2023-12-29 17:51:22 +05:30
Ankita Kinger
6b6a6d9907
chore: Refactoring multiple environments to use editorId instead of appId (#29873) 
## Description

Refactoring multiple environments to use `editorId` instead of `appId`
for supporting this feature on package editor on EE.

#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes [#28502](https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/28502)

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

## Testing

#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [x] Manual
- [ ] JUnit
- [x] Jest
- [x] Cypress

## Checklist:
#### Dev activity
- [x] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] My changes generate no new warnings
- [ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [x] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag


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


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

- **Refactor**
- Modified functions to accept object parameters instead of individual
values
  - Updated payload structure for specific functions
  - Modified parameter types for action handlers
  - Updated handling of workspace and editor IDs within sagas
  - Added new function and modified existing functions in storage
- Imported and used functions from "selectors/editorSelectors" in
specific components
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
 2023-12-29 11:24:12 +05:30
Hetu Nandu
99c56fe47a
chore: Side by Side foundations (#29894) 
Adds some foundational changes for Side by Side IDE behind a new feature
flag

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

- **New Features**
- Introduced a new IDE editor view mode with full-screen and half-screen
options.
- Added feature flag `release_side_by_side_ide_enabled` for enabling
side-by-side IDE layout.

- **Enhancements**
	- Updated UI to accommodate new editor view modes.
- Introduced `FileTabs` component for better file management within the
IDE.

- **Refactor**
	- Refactored state management for selected IDE tabs and segments.
- Improved Redux action and selector implementations related to IDE
functionalities.

- **Bug Fixes**
- Fixed import statements for consistent and correct usage across
components.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->

---------

Co-authored-by: coderabbitai[bot] <136622811+coderabbitai[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
 2023-12-27 17:41:54 +05:30
Ankita Kinger
410a55cf3c
fix: Refactoring code to fix a couple of issues related to modules on EE (#29843) 
## Description

Refactoring code to fix a couple of issues related to modules on EE

#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes [#29842](https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/29842)
[#29445](https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/29445)

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

## Testing

#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [x] Manual
- [ ] JUnit
- [ ] Jest
- [x] Cypress

## Checklist:
#### Dev activity
- [x] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [x] 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
- [ ] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag


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


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

## Summary by CodeRabbit

- **New Features**
  - Introduced a new interface for improved action context handling.
  - Added functionality to create API actions based on the editor type.
- Implemented a new hook for retrieving parent entity information in the
datasource editor.

- **Refactor**
- Updated various components to utilize the new
`ActionParentEntityTypeInterface`.
  - Enhanced reducer logic for better handling of action configurations.
  - Streamlined entity exports and imports for consistency.

- **Bug Fixes**
- Fixed redirection logic in the Datasource Blank State component for a
smoother user experience.

- **Chores**
  - Removed unused event listeners from sagas to optimize performance.

<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
 2023-12-26 11:38:00 +05:30
Ankita Kinger
1c6f026970
chore: Refactor JS action entity button checks (#29774) 
## Description

Refactoring JS action entity button checks

#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes [#29762](https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/29762)

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

## Testing

#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [x] Manual
- [ ] JUnit
- [ ] Jest
- [x] Cypress

## Checklist:
#### Dev activity
- [x] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] My changes generate no new warnings
- [ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [x] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag


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


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

- **Refactor**
- Simplified display logic for JavaScript collections by removing unused
properties.
  
- **Bug Fixes**
- Corrected the conditional display of context menus and edit icons in
the JavaScript editor.

- **Style**
- Updated user interface elements to reflect changes in display
properties.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
 2023-12-21 14:26:49 +05:30
Ankita Kinger
235122e7e3
chore: Refactoring API wiring for actions and JS actions to support private entity renaming on EE (#29763) 
## Description

Refactoring API wiring for actions and JS actions to support private
entity renaming on EE. Also handles a couple of other issues (refer the
issue attached below)

#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes [#29762](https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/29762)

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

## Testing
>
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [x] Manual
- [ ] JUnit
- [ ] Jest
- [x] Cypress

## Checklist:
#### Dev activity
- [x] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] My changes generate no new warnings
- [ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [x] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag


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


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

## Summary by CodeRabbit

- **New Features**
- Enhanced action and JS object naming capabilities with new
context-aware options.
  - Added support for organizing actions and JS objects within modules.

- **Improvements**
- Streamlined the process of renaming actions and JS objects to be more
intuitive and context-sensitive.

- **Refactor**
- Updated internal type declarations for consistency and future
extensibility.

- **User Interface**
- Improved UI elements to reflect the new naming and organizational
features for actions and JS objects.

- **Bug Fixes**
- Corrected logic to ensure proper handling of the `isPublic` flag
within JS collections.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
 2023-12-21 10:22:54 +05:30
Shrikant Sharat Kandula
078ef8a538
chore: Cleanup of some deprecated objects (#29577) 2023-12-20 11:34:46 +05:30
ashit-rath
1fbfb28abf
chore: reset entities reducers on editor unmount (#29565) 
## Description

Reset widgets, actions and jsCollection on application unmount.
This is to make sure no entities get into workflows or modules editor

#### PR fixes following issue(s)
PR for https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith-ee/pull/3138

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

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


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


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

## Summary by CodeRabbit

- **New Features**
- Implemented a feature to reset the editor to its initial state across
various components.

- **Refactor**
  - Enhanced state management to ensure a consistent reset behavior.

- **Chores**
- Updated internal state handling to improve performance and
reliability.

<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
 2023-12-19 16:01:44 +05:30
Ankita Kinger
cf6c77194b
chore: Refactoring entity types and updating DS action create permission to fix some bugs on EE (#29573) 
## Description

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

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

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

## Testing

#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [x] Manual
- [ ] JUnit
- [x] Jest
- [x] Cypress

## Checklist:
#### Dev activity
- [x] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] My changes generate no new warnings
- [ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [x] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

- **Tests**
- Updated test cases to reflect changes in entity type references and
assertions.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
 2023-12-14 20:14:30 +05:30
ashit-rath
c281600ea7
chore: refactor create jsobject under modules (#29555) 
## Description
Refactor to create js objects for modules

#### PR fixes following issue(s)
PR for https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith-ee/pull/3095

#### Media
> A video or a GIF is preferred. when using Loom, don’t embed because it
looks like it’s a GIF. instead, just link to the video
>
>
#### Type of change
- Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception)

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


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


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

- **Refactor**
- Updated import paths for `JSCollectionData` and related types across
various files to reflect a change in the file structure or module
resolution strategy.
- Exported `initialState` and `handlers` from `jsActionsReducer` to
align with updated code organization.

- **New Features**
- Added a new entry `JSModules` to the `entitySections` object in
`editorContextReducer.ts` to enhance editor context management.

- **Bug Fixes**
- Adjusted the `createDummyJSCollectionActions` function to include
`additionalParams` and `variables` for improved action creation and
initialization.

- **Documentation**
  - No visible changes to end-user documentation in this pull request.

- **Style**
  - No style-related changes affecting end-users in this pull request.

- **Tests**
  - No test-related changes affecting end-users in this pull request.

- **Chores**
  - No chore-related changes affecting end-users in this pull request.

- **Revert**
  - No reverts affecting end-users in this pull request.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
 2023-12-13 16:16:27 +05:30
Ankita Kinger
35b9e0b544
chore: Refactoring header actions on datasource page to support reusable queries on EE (#29442) 
## Description

Refactoring header actions on datasource page to support reusable
queries on EE

#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes [#28568](https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/28568)

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

## Testing

#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [x] Manual
- [ ] JUnit
- [ ] Jest
- [x] Cypress

## Checklist:
#### Dev activity
- [x] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] My changes generate no new warnings
- [ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [x] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag


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


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

- **New Features**
- Introduced a new header action management system in the data source
editor, allowing for dynamic action button generation based on user
permissions and editor type.
- Implemented a new editor type detection hook to improve editor
experience.

- **Improvements**
- Streamlined the data source editor interface by removing unused
permissions checks and simplifying action button logic.
- Enhanced the editor's routing system with additional constants for
deprecated paths.

- **Refactor**
- Refactored the `DSFormHeader` component to utilize the new
`useHeaderActions` hook for a cleaner and more maintainable codebase.
- Updated Redux state management to include a new action handler for
resetting editor state.

- **Style**
- Adjusted the layout of the `LeftPaneContainer` by removing the
`min-width` property for a more responsive design.

- **Chores**
- Cleaned up imports and unused variables across multiple files to
improve code clarity and maintainability.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
 2023-12-08 17:12:14 +05:30
Pawan Kumar
f0672f6f04
chore: Create a separate theme settings panel for WDS (#29196) 
Fixes #28516
 2023-12-01 15:39:21 +03:00
ashit-rath
dea2fd736c
chore: action response view refactor (#29031) 
## Description
Refactor PR for action response view and action execution saga

#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Refactor PR for https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith-ee/pull/2936

#### Media
> A video or a GIF is preferred. when using Loom, don’t embed because it
looks like it’s a GIF. instead, just link to the video
>
>
#### Type of change
- Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception)

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


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

---------

Co-authored-by: Rishabh-Rathod <rishabh.rathod@appsmith.com>
 2023-11-24 11:34:06 +05:30
Ankita Kinger
08fc116d54
chore: Split explorer hooks to support module instances (#29040) 
## Description

Splitting explorer hooks to support module instances

#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes [#26517](https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/26517)

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

## Testing

#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [x] Manual
- [ ] JUnit
- [x] Jest
- [x] Cypress

## Checklist:
#### Dev activity
- [x] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] My changes generate no new warnings
- [ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [x] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag


#### QA activity:
- [ ] [Speedbreak
features](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#speedbreakers-)
have been covered
- [ ] Test plan covers all impacted features and [areas of
interest](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#areas-of-interest-)
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by project stakeholders and other
QA members
- [ ] Manually tested functionality on DP
- [ ] We had an implementation alignment call with stakeholders post QA
Round 2
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by SDET/manual QA
- [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after Cypress tests were reviewed
- [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after JUnit tests were reviewed
 2023-11-23 10:55:15 +05:30
Aman Agarwal
be41a35e04
feat: 1st step to implement start with data onboarding option (#28843) 
## Description
Added a new step to display the datasources when a user clicks on the
`Start with data` option in the onboarding flow for creating new apps.

#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes #28552
Fixes #28807
> if no issue exists, please create an issue and ask the maintainers
about this first
>
>
#### Media
> A video or a GIF is preferred. when using Loom, don’t embed because it
looks like it’s a GIF. instead, just link to the video
>
>
#### Type of change
> Please delete options that are not relevant.
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
- New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
- Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing
functionality to not work as expected)
- Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception)
- This change requires a documentation update
>
>
>
## Testing
>
#### How Has This Been Tested?
> Please describe the tests that you ran to verify your changes. Also
list any relevant details for your test configuration.
> Delete anything that is not relevant
- [ ] Manual
- [ ] JUnit
- [ ] Jest
- [ ] Cypress
>
>
#### Test Plan
> Add Testsmith test cases links that relate to this PR
>
>
#### Issues raised during DP testing
> Link issues raised during DP testing for better visiblity and tracking
(copy link from comments dropped on this PR)
>
>
>
## Checklist:
#### Dev activity
- [ ] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [ ] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [ ] My changes generate no new warnings
- [ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [ ] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag


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

---------

Co-authored-by: nilansh <nilansh@appsmith.com>
Co-authored-by: “sneha122” <“sneha@appsmith.com”>
 2023-11-20 16:30:26 +05:30
Rahul Barwal
fd33730241
feat: Adds partial import functionality (#28293) 
## Description

This pull request adds partial import/export functionality to the
Appsmith application at page level, allowing users to import and export
specific widgets, data sources, queries, and custom JS libraries. The
functionality is behind a feature flag and includes loading and done
states.

#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes #27376
> 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\
- New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
## Testing
>
#### How Has This Been Tested?
> Please describe the tests that you ran to verify your changes. Also
list any relevant details for your test configuration.
> Delete anything that is not relevant
- [x] Manual
- [ ] JUnit
- [ ] Jest
- [ ] 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
- [ ] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [ ] My changes generate no new warnings
- [ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [ ] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag


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

---------

Co-authored-by: Jacques Ikot <jacquesikot@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Anagh Hegde <anagh@appsmith.com>
 2023-11-17 12:46:18 +05:30
Aman Agarwal
7721f703ec
feat: added an intermediary step to enable new create new app flow (#27457) 2023-11-09 09:49:02 +05:30
Rudraprasad Das
cda27eb6f3
feat: branch protection (#28526) 
## Description
- Adds server endpoints for getting and setting protected branches
- Adds protected canvas view for branch protection
- Adds default branch and protected branch in git modal settings

#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes #28434, #28056

#### Media
Protected View -
<img width="1728" alt="image"
src="https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/assets/8724051/4fb26450-61e1-4fc0-a66d-0ebaa28ff90c">

Branch Protection Settings -
<img width="1728" alt="image"
src="https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/assets/8724051/fb6d16b6-0a3c-42fd-be1a-9b3677048663">


#### Type of change
- New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)

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


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

---------

Co-authored-by: Nayan <nayan@appsmith.com>
 2023-11-03 22:43:36 +05:30
Ankita Kinger
00412a09ab
chore: Updating strings to sentence case and moving brand colors logic update to tenant reducer (#28219) 
## Description

Updating strings to sentence case and moving brand colors logic update
to tenant reducer

#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes [#28235](https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/28235)

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

## Testing

#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [x] Manual
- [ ] JUnit
- [ ] Jest
- [x] Cypress

## Checklist:
#### Dev activity
- [x] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] My changes generate no new warnings
- [ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [x] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag


#### QA activity:
- [ ] [Speedbreak
features](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#speedbreakers-)
have been covered
- [ ] Test plan covers all impacted features and [areas of
interest](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#areas-of-interest-)
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by project stakeholders and other
QA members
- [ ] Manually tested functionality on DP
- [ ] We had an implementation alignment call with stakeholders post QA
Round 2
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by SDET/manual QA
- [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after Cypress tests were reviewed
- [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after JUnit tests were reviewed
 2023-10-19 23:42:01 +05:30
Abhinav Jha
fce5524aa8
chore: Add observer to LayoutElements (#27993) 
## Description
- Create a hook based on the `LayoutElementPositionsObserver` and use it
in `AnvilFlexComponent` such that all widgets in Anvil have their
positions registered in the `LayoutElementPositionsReducer`
- Do the same for `layouts` in Anvil. Added in the `FlexLayout`
component.

#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes #26947 
Fixes #27287 

#### Type of change
- New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
 2023-10-18 19:09:07 +05:30
Ankita Kinger
b9bc00e1da
chore: Refactoring editor app name component for modules (#28055) 
## Description

Refactoring editor app name component for modules

#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes [#26163](https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/26163)

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

## Testing

#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [x] Manual
- [ ] JUnit
- [ ] Jest
- [x] Cypress

## Checklist:
#### Dev activity
- [x] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] My changes generate no new warnings
- [ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [x] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag


#### QA activity:
- [ ] [Speedbreak
features](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#speedbreakers-)
have been covered
- [ ] Test plan covers all impacted features and [areas of
interest](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#areas-of-interest-)
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by project stakeholders and other
QA members
- [ ] Manually tested functionality on DP
- [ ] We had an implementation alignment call with stakeholders post QA
Round 2
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by SDET/manual QA
- [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after Cypress tests were reviewed
- [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after JUnit tests were reviewed
 2023-10-16 14:37:39 +05:30
Favour Ohanekwu
3d1640e0ae
chore: Refactor debugger analytics for active fields (#28036) 
## Description
This PR fires debugger analytics for active fields only after the editor
onblur event is triggered.
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes #27679 
> if no issue exists, please create an issue and ask the maintainers
about this first
>
>
#### Media
> A video or a GIF is preferred. when using Loom, don’t embed because it
looks like it’s a GIF. instead, just link to the video
>
>
#### Type of change
> Please delete options that are not relevant.
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
- New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
- Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing
functionality to not work as expected)
- Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception)
- This change requires a documentation update
>
>
>
## Testing
>
#### How Has This Been Tested?
> Please describe the tests that you ran to verify your changes. Also
list any relevant details for your test configuration.
> Delete anything that is not relevant
- [ ] Manual
- [ ] JUnit
- [ ] Jest
- [ ] Cypress
>
>
#### Test Plan
> Add Testsmith test cases links that relate to this PR
>
>
#### Issues raised during DP testing
> Link issues raised during DP testing for better visiblity and tracking
(copy link from comments dropped on this PR)
>
>
>
## Checklist:
#### Dev activity
- [ ] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [ ] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [ ] My changes generate no new warnings
- [ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [ ] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag


#### QA activity:
- [ ] [Speedbreak
features](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#speedbreakers-)
have been covered
- [ ] Test plan covers all impacted features and [areas of
interest](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#areas-of-interest-)
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by project stakeholders and other
QA members
- [ ] Manually tested functionality on DP
- [ ] We had an implementation alignment call with stakeholders post QA
Round 2
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by SDET/manual QA
- [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after Cypress tests were reviewed
- [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after JUnit tests were reviewed
 2023-10-16 09:22:11 +05:30
Valera Melnikov
9eac55a380
chore: add consistent-type-definitions rule (#27907) 
## Description
Add consistent-type-definitions rule
 2023-10-11 10:35:24 +03:00
Ankita Kinger
21f83023a0
chore: Split share modal component into smaller components (#27681) 
## Description

Split share modal component into smaller components

#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes [#27851](https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/27851)
[#27671](https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/27671)

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

## Testing

#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [x] Manual
- [ ] JUnit
- [ ] Jest
- [x] Cypress

## Checklist:
#### Dev activity
- [x] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] My changes generate no new warnings
- [ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [x] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag


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

---------

Co-authored-by: Dipyaman Biswas <dipyaman@appsmith.com>
 2023-10-09 00:18:46 +05:30
rahulramesha
8a35e05923
chore: code changes for widget position observer and widget name on canvas (#27367) 
## Description
The PR contains non integrated code changes for below new features, The
changes are not integrated to work but only contains the ground work
code changes that can be added to css based layout/ Anvil once that is
available in Release.

- **Widget Position observer-** Since we are moving to css based layout,
the positions of widgets will be unknown. To solve the issue we have
introduced the above feature that stores/updates position of widgets on
Redux state whenever a widget position updates. without manually
triggering any action
- **Widget Name on Canvas-** For the New Layout the existing widget name
is inconsistent as it would cut off or visually not visible. to solve
that the widget name will now be drawn on html canvas than it being a
dom node component

#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes #26945 
Fixes #26948 


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


## Testing
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [ ] Manual
- [ ] JUnit
- [ ] Jest

#### Test Plan
> Add Testsmith test cases links that relate to this PR

#### Issues raised during DP testing
> Link issues raised during DP testing for better visiblity and tracking
(copy link from comments dropped on this PR)
>
>
>
## Checklist:
#### Dev activity
- [ ] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [ ] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [ ] My changes generate no new warnings
- [ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [ ] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag


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

---------

Co-authored-by: Ashok Kumar M <35134347+marks0351@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Abhinav Jha <abhinav@appsmith.com>
 2023-10-06 15:37:43 +05:30
Dhruvik Neharia
14e75be6d2
fix: If navigation settings object is empty in application details, use the default settings (#27779) 
## Description
We removed the clone/duplication feature, but if an app for some reason
has an empty navigation settings object - it doesn't show any pages in
the navbar nor any of the customization options for navigation inside
the app settings pane. This PR adds a check for this and uses the
default navigation settings as a fallback.

#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes #27721
Fixes #23565

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

## Testing

#### How Has This Been Tested?
To recreate this scenario, we can import this app that has an empty
navigation settings object. [App JSON
here.](https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/files/12791775/navigationSettingsEmptyObject.json.zip)

- [x] Manual
- [ ] JUnit
- [ ] Jest
- [ ] Cypress
>
>
#### Test Plan
> Add Testsmith test cases links that relate to this PR
>
>
#### Issues raised during DP testing
> Link issues raised during DP testing for better visiblity and tracking
(copy link from comments dropped on this PR)
>
>
>
## Checklist:
#### Dev activity
- [ ] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [ ] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [ ] My changes generate no new warnings
- [ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [ ] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag


#### QA activity:
- [ ] [Speedbreak
features](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#speedbreakers-)
have been covered
- [ ] Test plan covers all impacted features and [areas of
interest](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#areas-of-interest-)
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by project stakeholders and other
QA members
- [ ] Manually tested functionality on DP
- [ ] We had an implementation alignment call with stakeholders post QA
Round 2
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by SDET/manual QA
- [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after Cypress tests were reviewed
- [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after JUnit tests were reviewed
 2023-10-04 14:48:20 +05:30
Rahul Barwal
2c66814840
feat: community templates UI (#27302) 
## Description
Community templates UI changes.
Allow user to publish app to community portal

#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes #26343
> if no issue exists, please create an issue and ask the maintainers
about this first
>
>
#### Media
> A video or a GIF is preferred. when using Loom, don’t embed because it
looks like it’s a GIF. instead, just link to the video
>
>
#### Type of change
> Please delete options that are not relevant.
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
- New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
- Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing
functionality to not work as expected)
- Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception)
- This change requires a documentation update
>
>
>
## Testing
>
#### How Has This Been Tested?
> Please describe the tests that you ran to verify your changes. Also
list any relevant details for your test configuration.
> Delete anything that is not relevant
- [ ] Manual
- [ ] JUnit
- [ ] Jest
- [ ] Cypress
>
>
#### Test Plan
> Add Testsmith test cases links that relate to this PR
>
>
#### Issues raised during DP testing
> Link issues raised during DP testing for better visiblity and tracking
(copy link from comments dropped on this PR)
>
>
>
## Checklist:
#### Dev activity
- [ ] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [ ] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [ ] My changes generate no new warnings
- [ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [ ] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag


#### QA activity:
- [ ] [Speedbreak
features](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#speedbreakers-)
have been covered
- [ ] Test plan covers all impacted features and [areas of
interest](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#areas-of-interest-)
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by project stakeholders and other
QA members
- [ ] Manually tested functionality on DP
- [ ] We had an implementation alignment call with stakeholders post QA
Round 2
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by SDET/manual QA
- [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after Cypress tests were reviewed
- [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after JUnit tests were reviewed
 2023-09-25 11:57:23 +05:30
Ankita Kinger
dd347c051f
chore: Splitting uiReducers to support modules on EE (#27580) 
## Description

Splitting uiReducers to support modules on EE

#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes [#27581](https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/27581)

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

## Testing

#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [x] Manual
- [ ] JUnit
- [ ] Jest
- [x] Cypress

## Checklist:
#### Dev activity
- [x] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] My changes generate no new warnings
- [ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [x] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag


#### QA activity:
- [ ] [Speedbreak
features](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#speedbreakers-)
have been covered
- [ ] Test plan covers all impacted features and [areas of
interest](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#areas-of-interest-)
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by project stakeholders and other
QA members
- [ ] Manually tested functionality on DP
- [ ] We had an implementation alignment call with stakeholders post QA
Round 2
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by SDET/manual QA
- [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after Cypress tests were reviewed
- [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after JUnit tests were reviewed
 2023-09-25 10:23:01 +05:30
Ankita Kinger
1012c43ee7
chore: Splitting entities reducer for supporting more reducers on EE (#27560) 
## Description

Splitting entities reducer for supporting more reducers on EE

#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes [#27559](https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/27559)

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

## Testing

#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [x] Manual
- [ ] JUnit
- [ ] Jest
- [x] Cypress

## Checklist:
#### Dev activity
- [x] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] My changes generate no new warnings
- [ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [x] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag


#### QA activity:
- [ ] [Speedbreak
features](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#speedbreakers-)
have been covered
- [ ] Test plan covers all impacted features and [areas of
interest](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#areas-of-interest-)
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by project stakeholders and other
QA members
- [ ] Manually tested functionality on DP
- [ ] We had an implementation alignment call with stakeholders post QA
Round 2
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by SDET/manual QA
- [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after Cypress tests were reviewed
- [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after JUnit tests were reviewed
 2023-09-22 18:12:20 +05:30
Ankita Kinger
1c7cca908c
chore: Updating instance admin emails input field to tag input field for better UX (#27410) 
## Description

Updating instance admin emails input field to tag input field for better
UX

#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes [#27418](https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/27418)

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

## Testing

#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [x] Manual
- [ ] JUnit
- [ ] 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
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] My changes generate no new warnings
- [ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [x] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag


#### QA activity:
- [ ] [Speedbreak
features](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#speedbreakers-)
have been covered
- [ ] Test plan covers all impacted features and [areas of
interest](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#areas-of-interest-)
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by project stakeholders and other
QA members
- [ ] Manually tested functionality on DP
- [ ] We had an implementation alignment call with stakeholders post QA
Round 2
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by SDET/manual QA
- [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after Cypress tests were reviewed
- [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after JUnit tests were reviewed
 2023-09-19 11:54:43 +05:30
Aman Agarwal
3fc29dc459
feat: functionality to delete multiple apps at once (#26750) 2023-09-13 15:39:34 +05:30
Ankita Kinger
26558f44a3
fix: Adding invite to app permission to fix share modal getting auto-closed issue (#27106) 
## Description

A public app that the logged-in user doesn't have access to was
auto-closing the share modal when opened. This was happening because we
were fetching workspace even when the user did not have the invite to
app permission. This is now fixed with this PR.

#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes [#26870](https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/26870)

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

## Testing

#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [x] Manual
- [ ] JUnit
- [ ] Jest
- [x] Cypress

## Checklist:
#### Dev activity
- [x] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] My changes generate no new warnings
- [ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [x] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag


#### QA activity:
- [ ] [Speedbreak
features](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#speedbreakers-)
have been covered
- [ ] Test plan covers all impacted features and [areas of
interest](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#areas-of-interest-)
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by project stakeholders and other
QA members
- [ ] Manually tested functionality on DP
- [ ] We had an implementation alignment call with stakeholders post QA
Round 2
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by SDET/manual QA
- [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after Cypress tests were reviewed
- [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after JUnit tests were reviewed
 2023-09-11 09:44:32 +05:30
balajisoundar
2608e3dbd3
chore: Move the widget config to widget class (#26073) 
## Description
- Remove the config objects from widget and config maps from the widget
factory.
- Introduce methods in widget development API to dynamically fetch this
items.
- freeze the widget configuration.

#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/26008
> if no issue exists, please create an issue and ask the maintainers
about this first
>
>
#### Media
> A video or a GIF is preferred. when using Loom, don’t embed because it
looks like it’s a GIF. instead, just link to the video
>
>
#### Type of change
> Please delete options that are not relevant.
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
- New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
- Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing
functionality to not work as expected)
- Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception)
- This change requires a documentation update
>
>
>
## Testing
>
#### How Has This Been Tested?
> Please describe the tests that you ran to verify your changes. Also
list any relevant details for your test configuration.
> Delete anything that is not relevant
- [x] Manual
- [ ] Jest
- [ ] Cypress
>
>
#### Test Plan
> Add Testsmith test cases links that relate to this PR
>
>
#### Issues raised during DP testing
> Link issues raised during DP testing for better visiblity and tracking
(copy link from comments dropped on this PR)
>
>
>
## Checklist:
#### Dev activity
- [ ] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [ ] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [ ] My changes generate no new warnings
- [ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [ ] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag


#### QA activity:
- [ ] [Speedbreak
features](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#speedbreakers-)
have been covered
- [x] Test plan covers all impacted features and [areas of
interest](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#areas-of-interest-)
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by project stakeholders and other
QA members
- [x] Manually tested functionality on DP
- [ ] We had an implementation alignment call with stakeholders post QA
Round 2
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by SDET/manual QA
- [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after Cypress tests were reviewed
- [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after JUnit tests were reviewed
 2023-09-06 17:45:04 +05:30
Ankita Kinger
a866aa47c9
chore: Optimizing the solution for supporting tenant config on admin settings (#24454) 
## Description

Optimizing the solution for supporting tenant config on admin settings

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

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

## Testing

#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [x] Manual
- [ ] 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
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] My changes generate no new warnings
- [ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [x] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag


#### QA activity:
- [ ] [Speedbreak
features](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#speedbreakers-)
have been covered
- [ ] Test plan covers all impacted features and [areas of
interest](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#areas-of-interest-)
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by project stakeholders and other
QA members
- [ ] Manually tested functionality on DP
- [ ] We had an implementation alignment call with stakeholders post QA
Round 2
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by SDET/manual QA
- [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after Cypress tests were reviewed
- [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after JUnit tests were reviewed
 2023-06-14 19:39:38 +05:30
Michael Carner
a3fe54f217
fix: reset workspace before deleting a workspace (#23782) 
## Description
Fixes [#12057](https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/12057)

In specific scenarios, the currentWorkspace is not up to date and uses a
previous workspace, which can cause certain API calls to fail. The end
result is the user sees a "No Resource Found" error with no clear
explanation.

This changes adds a new ReduxAction RESET_CURRENT_WORKSPACE with returns
it to it's initial value. The only place I've added that is at the
begining of deleteWorkspaceSaga()

#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes # (12057)

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

## Testing

#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [x] 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] My changes generate no new warnings
- [x] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes


#### QA activity:
- [ ] [Speedbreak
features](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Test-plan-implementation#speedbreaker-features-to-consider-for-every-change)
have been covered
- [ ] Test plan covers all impacted features and [areas of
interest](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans/_edit#areas-of-interest)
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by project stakeholders and other
QA members
- [ ] Manually tested functionality on DP
- [ ] We had an implementation alignment call with stakeholders post QA
Round 2
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by SDET/manual QA
- [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after Cypress tests were reviewed
- [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after JUnit tests were reviewed
 2023-06-02 17:50:53 +05:30
Nilesh Sarupriya
98a8287697
chore: add utility for widget level acl (#23526) 
## Description
> This is a utility code change for supporting Widget Level ACL in
Appsmith-EE.

#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/23260

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

## Testing
> A test case has been added to assert the user management role.

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

---------

Co-authored-by: Nilesh Sarupriya <20905988+nsarupr@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Ankita Kinger <ankita@appsmith.com>
 2023-06-02 16:36:41 +05:30
balajisoundar
a72e3347f5
feat: Table one click binding for MongoDB and Postgres (#23629) 
> Pull Request Template
>
> Use this template to quickly create a well written pull request.
Delete all quotes before creating the pull request.
>
## Description
> Add a TL;DR when description is extra long (helps content team)
>
> Please include a summary of the changes and which issue has been
fixed. Please also include relevant motivation
> and context. List any dependencies that are required for this change
>
> Links to Notion, Figma or any other documents that might be relevant
to the PR
>
>
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes # (issue number)
> if no issue exists, please create an issue and ask the maintainers
about this first
>
>
#### Media
> A video or a GIF is preferred. when using Loom, don’t embed because it
looks like it’s a GIF. instead, just link to the video
>
>
#### Type of change
> Please delete options that are not relevant.
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
- New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
- Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing
functionality to not work as expected)
- Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception)
- This change requires a documentation update
>
>
>
## Testing
>
#### How Has This Been Tested?
> Please describe the tests that you ran to verify your changes. Also
list any relevant details for your test configuration.
> Delete anything that is not relevant
- [x] Manual
- [x] Jest
- [x] Cypress
>
>
#### Test Plan
> One Click Binding -
https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/issues/2390
>
#### 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:
- [ ] [Speedbreak
features](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Test-plan-implementation#speedbreaker-features-to-consider-for-every-change)
have been covered
- [ ] Test plan covers all impacted features and [areas of
interest](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans/_edit#areas-of-interest)
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by project stakeholders and other
QA members
- [ ] Manually tested functionality on DP
- [ ] We had an implementation alignment call with stakeholders post QA
Round 2
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by SDET/manual QA
- [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after Cypress tests were reviewed
- [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after JUnit tests were reviewed

---------

Co-authored-by: Vemparala Surya Vamsi <vamsi@appsmith.com>
 2023-06-01 22:56:05 +05:30
Hetu Nandu
73f5637f43
chore: Revert Multi pane scale (#23909) 2023-05-31 18:36:34 +05:30
Rahul Barwal
87354cbdcc
feat: deprecate duplicate button (#23461) 
## Description
We have `Fork` and `Duplicate` options which essentially do the same
thing, the former one provides us more flexibility, hence we are
removing the `Duplicate` option completely from our app.

#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes #13169
#### Media

#### Type of change
- Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing
functionality to not work as expected)

## Testing
>
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [x] Cypress
- [x] 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
- [x] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] My changes generate no new warnings
- [ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [x] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag


#### QA activity:
- [ ] [Speedbreak
features](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Test-plan-implementation#speedbreaker-features-to-consider-for-every-change)
have been covered
- [x] Test plan covers all impacted features and [areas of
interest](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans/_edit#areas-of-interest)
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by project stakeholders and other
QA members
- [x] Manually tested functionality on DP
- [ ] We had an implementation alignment call with stakeholders post QA
Round 2
- [x] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by SDET/manual QA
- [x] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after Cypress tests were reviewed
- [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after JUnit tests were reviewed
 2023-05-24 10:34:52 +05:30
akash-codemonk
187489ed6a
feat: add option to mark application as forkable (#21874) 2023-05-23 16:39:05 +05:30
albinAppsmith
629999f124
feat: [epic] appsmith design system version 2 deduplication (#22030) 
## Description

### Fixes
- [x] https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/19383
- [x] https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/19384
- [x] https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/19385
- [x] https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/19386
- [x] https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/19387
- [x] https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/19388
- [x] https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/19389
- [x] https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/19390
- [x] https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/19391
- [x] https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/19392
- [x] https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/19393
- [x] https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/19394
- [x] https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/19395
- [x] https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/19396
- [x] https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/19397
- [x] https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/19398
- [x] https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/19399
- [x] https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/19400
- [x] https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/19401
- [x] https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/19402
- [x] https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/19403
- [x] https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/19404
- [x] https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/19405
- [x] https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/19406
- [x] https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/19407
- [x] https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/19408
- [x] https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/19409

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

---------

Co-authored-by: Ankita Kinger <ankita@appsmith.com>
Co-authored-by: akash-codemonk <67054171+akash-codemonk@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Tanvi Bhakta <tanvi@appsmith.com>
Co-authored-by: Arsalan <arsalanyaldram0211@outlook.com>
Co-authored-by: Aman Agarwal <aman@appsmith.com>
Co-authored-by: Rohit Agarwal <rohit_agarwal@live.in>
Co-authored-by: Nilesh Sarupriya <nilesh@appsmith.com>
Co-authored-by: Nilesh Sarupriya <20905988+nsarupr@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Tanvi Bhakta <tanvibhakta@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Aishwarya UR <aishwarya@appsmith.com>
Co-authored-by: Parthvi Goswami <parthvigoswami@Parthvis-MacBook-Pro.local>
Co-authored-by: Vijetha-Kaja <vijetha@appsmith.com>
Co-authored-by: Parthvi <80334441+Parthvi12@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Apple <nandan@thinkify.io>
Co-authored-by: Saroj <43822041+sarojsarab@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Sangeeth Sivan <74818788+berzerkeer@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Ashok Kumar M <35134347+marks0351@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Aishwarya-U-R <91450662+Aishwarya-U-R@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: rahulramesha <rahul@appsmith.com>
Co-authored-by: Aswath K <aswath.sana@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Preet Sidhu <preetsidhu.bits@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Vijetha-Kaja <119562824+Vijetha-Kaja@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Shrikant Sharat Kandula <shrikant@appsmith.com>
 2023-05-20 00:07:06 +05:30
Ravi Kumar Prasad
358926d5a0
fix: show evaluated value for action selector fields (#23099) 
## Description
The evaluated values for text fields in action selector were not shown.
This PR fixes the issue.

#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes #12736 

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

## Testing
>
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [x] Cypress
>
>
#### Test Plan
> Add Testsmith test cases links that relate to this PR
>
>
#### Issues raised during DP testing
> Link issues raised during DP testing for better visiblity and tracking
(copy link from comments dropped on this PR)
>
>
>
## Checklist:
#### Dev activity
- [x] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] My changes generate no new warnings
- [x] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [ ] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag


#### QA activity:
- [ ] [Speedbreak
features](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Test-plan-implementation#speedbreaker-features-to-consider-for-every-change)
have been covered
- [x] Test plan covers all impacted features and [areas of
interest](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans/_edit#areas-of-interest)
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by project stakeholders and other
QA members
- [x] Manually tested functionality on DP
- [ ] We had an implementation alignment call with stakeholders post QA
Round 2
- [x] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by SDET/manual QA
- [x] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after Cypress tests were reviewed
- [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after JUnit tests were reviewed
 2023-05-16 22:29:11 +05:30