c655aea15c
14 Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
arunvjn
|
dee0a54227
|
fix: Preserve query execution data on name refactor (#28973)
## Description Code changes to preserve execution data when a Query/JS Object is renamed. > #### PR fixes following issue(s) Fixes #28985 > > #### Media > A video or a GIF is preferred. when using Loom, don’t embed because it looks like it’s a GIF. instead, just link to the video > > #### Type of change - Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue) > > > ## Testing > #### How Has This Been Tested? - [x] Manual - [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 - [ ] 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/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 |
||
|
Valera Melnikov
|
9eac55a380
|
chore: add consistent-type-definitions rule (#27907)
## Description Add consistent-type-definitions rule |
||
|
Favour Ohanekwu
|
e37d3b8dba
|
feat: Remove Action/Query/JS data from unevalTree (#27056)
## Description
This PR reduces the size of the unevalTree by removing action/query/js
function data from it. This improves the performance of Apps by
1. Reducing the overall time for generating dataTree diffs
2. Decreasing the time taken to generate allKeys
3. Reducing the number of nodes in the dependency graph thereby
improving dependency graph operations like
- Sorting dependencies
- Adding nodes to the dep graph
### Performance
Release
<img width="294" alt="Screenshot 2023-09-27 at 20 22 31"
src="https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/assets/46670083/df4667e5-33c3-44c6-bfd4-a170edaa43b8">
DP
<img width="304" alt="Screenshot 2023-09-27 at 20 24 16"
src="https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/assets/46670083/598d4a2d-9a32-4bcf-81e7-25f178f779d5">
37.8% improvement in worker scripting time for fairly large App.
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes #23570
#### Type of change
- New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
#### How Has This Been Tested?
> Please describe the tests that you ran to verify your changes. Also
list any relevant details for your test configuration.
> Delete anything that is not relevant
- [ ] Manual
- [ ] JUnit
- [ ] Jest
- [ ] Cypress
>
>
#### Test Plan
1. Validating the Crude app/ api query and JS object
2. Validating the chart/table/Select/Tree select for Query and API
#### Issues raised during DP testing
> Link issues raised during DP testing for better visiblity and tracking
(copy link from comments dropped on this PR)
>
>
>
## Checklist:
#### Dev activity
- [ ] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [ ] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [ ] My changes generate no new warnings
- [ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [ ] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag
#### QA activity:
- [ ] [Speedbreak
features](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#speedbreakers-)
have been covered
- [ ] Test plan covers all impacted features and [areas of
interest](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#areas-of-interest-)
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by project stakeholders and other
QA members
- [ ] Manually tested functionality on DP
- [ ] We had an implementation alignment call with stakeholders post QA
Round 2
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by SDET/manual QA
- [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after Cypress tests were reviewed
- [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after JUnit tests were reviewed
|
||
|
Hetu Nandu
|
02bd42003a
|
chore: Sunset Omnibar Documentation and Snippets (#24787)
## Description We are removing the documentation and snippets that used to be shown in the omnibar. These features are not being maintained and usage is pretty low. #### PR fixes following issue(s) Fixes #24278 Fixes #24279 Fixes #24280 #### 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] Manual - [x] Cypress #### Test Plan https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/24787#issuecomment-1611180354 #### Issues raised during DP testing https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/24787#issuecomment-1611475323 ## 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: - [x] [Speedbreak features](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#speedbreakers-) have been covered - [x] Test plan covers all impacted features and [areas of interest](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#areas-of-interest-) - [x] Test plan has been peer reviewed by project stakeholders and other QA members - [x] Manually tested functionality on DP - [x] 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 - [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after Cypress tests were reviewed - [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after JUnit tests were reviewed |
||
|
Favour Ohanekwu
|
5db37b871e
|
chore: Log JS Function execution (#24163) | ||
|
Rimil Dey
|
4094d49f06
|
fix: Sanitise toast error msgs (#22544)
## Description Currently, the error messages in the toasts contain the names of the errors (like Reference error, uncaught promise rejection error, etc.,). These are unhelpful to users (especially if they are not programmers) and do not convey any actionable feedback to the user who is trying to fix and debug the app. You can see it in action [here](https://www.loom.com/share/e946f779dd1147f38eec1588a84821b2). This PR aims to remove the names of these errors from the toast messages so that the action to fix them can be highlighted. We are retaining the names of the errors for the console, so that programmers using the console, can get a full context of the error. Fixes #22318 Media Previous behavior - https://www.loom.com/share/e946f779dd1147f38eec1588a84821b2 Current behavior - https://www.loom.com/share/83fd8d08ed114f8b830acadb9894e4b1 ## Type of change - Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue) ## How Has This Been Tested? - Manual - Jest - Cypress ### Test Plan - Reference error check - Uncaught promise rejection check ### Issues raised during DP testing - none ## Checklist: ### Dev activity - [x] My code follows the style guidelines of this project - [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code - [ ] I have commented on my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas - [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation - [x] My changes generate no new warnings - [ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works - [ ] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes - [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag ### QA activity: - [ ] Test plan has been approved by relevant developers - [ ] Test plan has been peer-reviewed by QA - [x] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by either SDET or manual QA - [ ] Organized project review call with relevant stakeholders after Round 1/2 of QA - [x] Added Test Plan Approved label after reviewing all Cypress test |
||
|
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> |
||
|
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 |
||
|
ChandanBalajiBP
|
82d931e173
|
fix: Remove toast messages (#22267)
## Description > Remove Toast messages on the following scenarios >1. Upon execution of an API/Query/JSFunction. >2. User is in action page and onpageload actions are executed. > ex: User is in API page and the API is set to execute on page load. Now if users refresh application then the API is executed. Now we won't show any toasts but open response tab. > But if user refresh page from canvas or any other page then it's own page , the toasts w.r.t the API execution will be shown. > TL;DR - Toast messages upon action execution is removed and we are serving this by opening the response tab automatically for the users. Fixes #21490 ## Type of change - Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue) ## How Has This Been Tested? - Manual - Cypress ### Test Plan > Add Testsmith test cases links that relate to this PR ### Issues raised during DP testing > Link issues raised during DP testing for better visiblity and tracking (copy link from comments dropped on this PR) ## Checklist: ### Dev activity - [x] My code follows the style guidelines of this project - [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code - [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas - [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation - [x] My changes generate no new warnings - [x] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works - [x] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes - [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag ### QA activity: - [ ] Test plan has been approved by relevant developers - [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by QA - [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by either SDET or manual QA - [ ] Organized project review call with relevant stakeholders after Round 1/2 of QA - [ ] Added Test Plan Approved label after reveiwing all Cypress test |
||
|
Ivan Akulov
|
424d2f6965
|
chore: upgrade to prettier v2 + enforce import types (#21013)Co-authored-by: Satish Gandham <hello@satishgandham.com> Co-authored-by: Satish Gandham <satish.iitg@gmail.com>
## Description
This PR upgrades Prettier to v2 + enforces TypeScript’s [`import
type`](https://www.typescriptlang.org/docs/handbook/release-notes/typescript-3-8.html#type-only-imports-and-export)
syntax where applicable. It’s submitted as a separate PR so we can merge
it easily.
As a part of this PR, we reformat the codebase heavily:
- add `import type` everywhere where it’s required, and
- re-format the code to account for Prettier 2’s breaking changes:
https://prettier.io/blog/2020/03/21/2.0.0.html#breaking-changes
This PR is submitted against `release` to make sure all new code by team
members will adhere to new formatting standards, and we’ll have fewer
conflicts when merging `bundle-optimizations` into `release`. (I’ll
merge `release` back into `bundle-optimizations` once this PR is
merged.)
### Why is this needed?
This PR is needed because, for the Lodash optimization from
|
||
|
arunvjn
|
1d9d5bb197
|
fix: access outer scope variables inside callbacks (#20168)
## Description
Any platform function that accepts a callback were unable to access the
variables declared in its parent scopes. This was a implementation miss
when we originally designed platform functions and again when we turned
almost every platform function into a Promise. This PR fixes this
limitation along with some other edge cases.
- Access outer scope variables inside the callback of run, postMessage,
setInterval, getGeoLocation and watchGeolocation functions.
- Fixes certain edge cases where functions with callbacks when called
inside the then block doesn't get executed. Eg `showAlert.then(() => /*
Doesn't execute */ Api1.run(() => {}))`
- Changes the implementation of all the platform function in appsmith to
maintain the execution metadata (info on from where a function was
invoked, event associated with it etc)
#### Refactor changes
- Added a new folder **_fns_** that would now hold all the platform
functions.
- Introduced a new ExecutionMetadata singleton class that is now
responsible for hold all the meta data related to the current
evaluation.
- Remove TRIGGER_COLLECTOR array where all callback based platform
functions were batched and introduced an Event Emitter based
implementation to handle batched fn calls.
- All callback based functions now emits event when invoked. These
events have handlers attached to the TriggerEmitter object. These
handler does the job of batching these invocations and telling the main
thread. It also ensures that platform fn calls that gets triggered out
the the context of a request/response cycle work.
#### Architecture
<img width="751" alt="Screenshot 2023-02-07 at 10 04 26"
src="https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/32433245/217259200-5eac71bc-f0d3-4d3c-9b69-2a8dc81351bc.png">
Fixes #13156
Fixes #20225
## Type of change
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
- Refactor
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Jest
- Cypress
- Manual
### Test Plan
- [ ] https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/issues/2181
- [ ] https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/issues/2182
- [ ] Post message -
https://appsmith-git-chore-outer-scope-variable-access-get-appsmith.vercel.app/app/post-msg-app/page1-635fcfba2987b442a739b938/edit
- [ ] Apps:
https://appsmith-git-chore-outer-scope-variable-access-get-appsmith.vercel.app/app/earworm-1/home-630c9d85b4658d0f257c4987/edit
- [ ]
https://appsmith-git-chore-outer-scope-variable-access-get-appsmith.vercel.app/app/automation-test-cases/page-1-630c6b90d4ecd573f6bb01e9/edit#0hmn8m90ei
### Issues raised during DP testing
> Link issues raised during DP testing for better visiblity and tracking
(copy link from comments dropped on this PR)
## Checklist:
### Dev activity
- [x] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [x] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] My changes generate no new warnings
- [x] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [x] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [ ] 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 reviewing all Cypress test
|
||
|
arunvjn
|
c8063743a2
|
fix: Batch operations on appsmith store for performance gains (#19247) | ||
|
Anand Srinivasan
|
be6a96e760
|
chore: ee clean up (#19475)
Related to #15538 To enable adding a new action only for EE. Refactored `ActionTriggerType` enum to a union type. So we can extend this with a new action in EE repo. Made sure type discrimination is handled in `ActionExecutionSaga` properly as before. --- - Introduced `ActionTriggerKeys` union type which can be used for type checking the values. - Refactored `ActionDescription` types to accommodate usage of the union type instead of enum. - exported required types for usage in EE repo. --- strings and payload are type checked as follows.   Co-authored-by: Aishwarya UR <aishwarya@appsmith.com> |
||
|
Anand Srinivasan
|
db38a64e71
|
chore: update imports for code split (#19085)
* move actionTriggers.ts * update imports Explorer/helpers.tsx * update imports EntityDefinitions.ts * update imports Evaluation/Actions.ts * update imports for ActionExecutionSagas * missed worker types * missed imports * update imports for dataTreeUtils * missed imports Co-authored-by: Aishwarya UR <aishwarya@appsmith.com> |
