c76e6c031c
9 Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Valera Melnikov
|
42debc6d11
|
chore: rename ADS package (#35583)
## Description Rename `design-system` package to `@appsmith/ads` ## Automation /ok-to-test tags="@tag.All" ### 🔍 Cypress test results <!-- This is an auto-generated comment: Cypress test results --> > [!TIP] > 🟢 🟢 🟢 All cypress tests have passed! 🎉 🎉 🎉 > Workflow run: <https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/actions/runs/10319507327> > Commit: 65d9664dd75b750496458a6e1652e0da858e1fc6 > <a href="https://internal.appsmith.com/app/cypress-dashboard/rundetails-65890b3c81d7400d08fa9ee5?branch=master&workflowId=10319507327&attempt=1" target="_blank">Cypress dashboard</a>. > Tags: `@tag.All` > Spec: > <hr>Fri, 09 Aug 2024 13:47:50 UTC <!-- end of auto-generated comment: Cypress test results --> ## Communication Should the DevRel and Marketing teams inform users about this change? - [ ] Yes - [x] No |
||
|
Valera Melnikov
|
c42e0317de
|
fix: change appsmith alias (#35349)
In order to unify package names, we decided to use `@appsmith` prefix as a marker to indicate that packages belong to our codebase and that these packages are developed internally. So that we can use this prefix, we need to rename the alias of the same name. But since `@appsmith` is currently being used as an alias for `ee` folder, we have to rename the alias as the first step. Related discussion https://theappsmith.slack.com/archives/CPG2ZTXEY/p1722516279126329 EE PR — https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith-ee/pull/4801 ## Automation /ok-to-test tags="@tag.All" ### 🔍 Cypress test results <!-- This is an auto-generated comment: Cypress test results --> > [!TIP] > 🟢 🟢 🟢 All cypress tests have passed! 🎉 🎉 🎉 > Workflow run: <https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/actions/runs/10267368821> > Commit: 2b00af2d257e4d4304db0a80072afef7513de6be > <a href="https://internal.appsmith.com/app/cypress-dashboard/rundetails-65890b3c81d7400d08fa9ee5?branch=master&workflowId=10267368821&attempt=2" target="_blank">Cypress dashboard</a>. > Tags: `@tag.All` > Spec: > <hr>Tue, 06 Aug 2024 14:24:22 UTC <!-- end of auto-generated comment: Cypress test results --> ## Communication Should the DevRel and Marketing teams inform users about this change? - [ ] Yes - [x] No |
||
|
Rahul Barwal
|
b380b28c42
|
feat: Add "Start with template" option and refactor template components (#30946)
## Description This pull request adds the "Start with template" option to the workspace action menu and refactors several template components to improve code organization and maintainability. #### PR fixes following issue(s) Fixes #30860 > 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** - Introduced the ability to create new applications from templates, enhancing user experience with a selection of predefined options. - Added a new feature flag to toggle the visibility of the "Create App from Template" functionality, allowing for phased rollouts. - **Enhancements** - Updated text constants for a more intuitive user interface. - Streamlined the template selection and application creation process with improved UI components and logic. - **Refactor** - Significant code organization and refactoring in template handling components for better maintainability and readability. - **Tests** - Adjusted unit tests to align with the new template creation flow. - **Style** - Adjusted styling for template views, ensuring a consistent and appealing user interface. <!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai --> |
||
|
Jacques Ikot
|
be308fab43
|
feat: update template screen UI and building blocks for new users in start from use case flow (#29020)
> Pull Request Template > > Use this template to quickly create a well written pull request. Delete all quotes before creating the pull request. > ## Description Updating the UI for the start from use case flow for new users + adding building blocks to the list of templates offered to new users in this flow. > > 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 > https://www.figma.com/file/kbU9xPv44neCfv1FFo9Ndu/User-Activation?node-id=4293:41450&mode=dev > https://www.notion.so/appsmith/Activation-experiment-2-Start-from-a-template-Offer-building-blocks-in-addition-to-templates-8986dfc3629041559c81b1650b3a5fe5?pvs=4 #### PR fixes following issue(s) Fixes #28605 > 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 - [ ] 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 - [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas - [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation - [x] My changes generate no new warnings - [ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works - [ ] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes - [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 |
||
|
Aman Agarwal
|
7721f703ec
|
feat: added an intermediary step to enable new create new app flow (#27457) | ||
|
ashit-rath
|
59d0f999ad
|
chore: route builder refactor (#27905)
## Description This PR aims to achieve 2 things 1. Make route building independent of explicitly passing `pageId` as param when the route is generated against the current page navigation. 2. Add extensible points to extend basePath generation in EE. THIS PR DOES NOT CHANGE ROUTE GENERATION. Changes: In `app/client/src/ce/entities/URLRedirect/URLAssembly.ts` 1. Moves the logic of `generateBasePath` way to specific method called `generateBasePathForApps` and the generateBasePath is available to extend and switch between a different base path generation logic in EE. 2. Adds a new member variable called `currentPageId`. This `currentPageId` would help generating basePath without explicitly passing `pageId` to the build method. If a `pageId` is passed it would be overridden in the `resolveEntityId` logic. 3. Added `resolveEntityId` method to resolve the entity (pageId) based on the params passed and the `currentPageId`. This method also acts as an extension point for extending the logic to any other resolution logic similar to `generateBasePath` In `app/client/src/pages/AppViewer/index.tsx` and `app/client/src/pages/Editor/index.tsx` The `currentPageId` is set using the `urlBuilder.setCurrentPageId` when the component mounts or page changes and unset when the component unmounts. #### PR fixes following issue(s) Fixes #27840 #### 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 - [x] Manual - [ ] JUnit - [x] Jest - [ ] Cypress > > #### Test Plan > Add Testsmith test cases links that relate to this PR > > #### Issues raised during DP testing > Link issues raised during DP testing for better visiblity and tracking (copy link from comments dropped on this PR) > > > ## Checklist: #### Dev activity - [x] My code follows the style guidelines of this project - [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code - [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas - [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation - [x] My changes generate no new warnings - [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 |
||
|
Rahul Barwal
|
8b912bff5d
|
fix: Reset templates filter for templates modal (#24192)
## Description * Currently we do not reset the template filters when we close template modal and open it again in `add page from template flow` This becomes confusing for some users. * Also increases test coverage of templates filtering #### PR fixes following issue(s) Fixes #17276 #### Media https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/assets/6761673/3c94e21b-e8a9-4c6b-bc81-e677269bb5ea #### 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 - [ ] 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/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 |
||
|
Rahul Barwal
|
8014b091d5
|
feat: move Use this template to top of iframe (#24361)
## Description * Moved `Use this template` from description to header. * Restructured template `Header` to its separate component. #### PR fixes following issue(s) Fixes #15946 #### Media  #### Type of change - New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality) ## 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 - [ ] 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/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 |