## Description
> Need an api to vend out messages for users alerting them of breaking
changes in upcoming releases.
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes#23064
#### Type of change
- New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
## Testing
>
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [x] Manual
- [ ] Jest
- [ ] Cypress
>
>
#### Test Plan
> This should be tested using curl by hitting the api endpoint endpoint
without any context and get a message in return that was configured in a
config file.
## Checklist:
#### Dev activity
- [x] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [ ] My changes generate no new warnings
- [ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [ ] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag
#### QA activity:
- [ ] [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: Hetu Nandu <hetunandu@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Hetu Nandu <hetu@appsmith.com>
Feature implementations:
- Schema in the Api Right Side Pane;
- New Bindings UI, which is now a suggested widget;
- Feature walkthrough for the aforementioned two units only if you are a new user.
Only those users who have the flags `ab_ds_binding_enabled` and `ab_ds_schema_enabled` independently set to true can see the implementation described above.
https://www.notion.so/appsmith/Activation-60c64894f42d4cdcb92220c1dbc73802
## Description
This PR fixes the bug when custom themes are not duplicated when user
checks out to a new branch.
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes#21474
## Description
> This PR sets the default traits for the users in the same SDK call to
get features.
> This ensures the traits are present for all users and also the SDK
calls are contained.
Fixes#25159
#### 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
- [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
- [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
## Description
This PR fixes the TenantServiceCETest failure that happens on EE
codebase
#### Type of change
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
>
>
>
## 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
- [ ] 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 PR moved the License domain out of TenantConfiguration
#### 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
- [ ] 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: Aishwarya UR <aishwarya@appsmith.com>
## Description
> The git discard flow only discards the properties which were set in
the last commit. If the properties are not present in the application
json in the last commit and the user changes these properties to some
value and after that choose to discard, the changes are not overwritten
to null values.
> This happens because git uses a function `copyNestedNonNullProperties`
to overwrite the values to the last commit ones which ignores the
properties if those are null.
> This PR explicitly sets the null properties in the target json, so
that when the user discards the initially set null properties, these get
discarded.
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes#24920
#### 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)
## 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
- [ ] 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
- [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
## Description
Added LicensePlan to tenant to get details about the user's current plan
#### 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
- [x] JUnit
- [ ] 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
## Description
To measure the impact of query modules in Appsmith. We need to track the
time a user takes to edit a copied query. Today, we do not have a
mechanism to understand if a query in question is a copied query. To fix
this, the data model of the Query action needs to change to include the
`originalQueryId` if a query is, in fact, a copied query.
- [ ] When a query is first copied, there will be no `originalActionId`
in the action object. In this scenario, the client will populate the
`originalActionId` field and call the POST API to create the copied
query.
- [ ] If the query is already a copied query, the client will duplicate
the value of the `originalActionId` when calling the POST API to create
the copied query.
|POST|`/api/v1/actions`|
----------|------|
### [Related discussion on
Notion](https://www.notion.so/appsmith/Backend-dependency-for-modules-instrumentation-889462d461844745be0a2599c8555ca5)
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes#24734
#### 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] 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
- [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
> 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
- [ ] 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: Abhinav Jha <abhinav@appsmith.com>
## Description
> Add skip to the queryAll method.
> This will allow us to skip the desired number of elements while
querying.
> Also added a protected method: getSystemGeneratedUserEmails.
> This method has been added so that it will now act as the source of
truth for the system generated emails, and can be overridden on EE repo
to add more of the same.
#### 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
- New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
- Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception)
## Testing
>
#### How Has This Been Tested?
> Added a test case `testSkipAndLimitForUserRepo` in user repository,
which checks for the sorted elements which should be returned as part of
skipping elements.
#### 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
---------
Co-authored-by: Nilesh Sarupriya <20905988+nsarupr@users.noreply.github.com>
## Description
> This PR updates the old scheduler-based class variable feature
flagging cache to the user-based on demand Redis cache.
Fixes#24941
#### 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?
- [x] Manual
- [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
- [ ] 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
## Description
Simply refactors code to allow EE overrides.
#### Type of change
- Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception)
## Testing
Only needs existing cases to pass
- [x] JUnit
- [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
- [ ] 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
## Description
When we import an application from file for Git, file import, templates
and other features, we import the list of actions one by one. This leads
to transaction timeout and other performance issues when the application
has a large number of actions and action collections. This PR imports
the actions and action collections in bulk so that number of database
queries are significantly reduced.
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes#24419
## Description
PR to code split the Network utils class which is being used and
modified in both CE and EE repo. This will fix the merge conflicts we
were seeing recently for NetworkUtils class.
EE PR: https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith-ee/pull/1708
Fixes https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/24271
#### Type of change
- Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception)
## Testing
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [ ] Manual
## Checklist:
#### Dev activity
- [x] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [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
## Description
> Refactor the User creation workflow.
> Changes:
> - Changed the access of `addUserPolicies` to protected so that it can
be overridden in `UserServiceImpl.java`.
> - Added `addUserPoliciesAndSaveToRepo` which wraps around
`addUserPolicies` and then saves the updated user object to Database.
> - Removed a few debug logs, which were added earlier.
> - Updated the test case assertions in
`createNewUser_WhenEmailHasUpperCase_SavedInLowerCase` and
`createNewUserValid`
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes # (issue number)
#### Type of change
- Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception)
## Testing
> No testing required as we are widening the scope of a method.
## 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
---------
Co-authored-by: Nilesh Sarupriya <20905988+nsarupr@users.noreply.github.com>
## Description
> This PR integrates Flagsmith feature flagging into the Appsmith
codebase
> It also sets some default traits such as instance_id, tenant_id and
email/hashed email to the new and existing users
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes#24037
#### Type of change
- New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
- Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing
functionality to not work as expected)
## 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
- [ ] 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
---------
Co-authored-by: Hetu Nandu <hetunandu@gmail.com>
## Description
> TL;DR now returning empty datasourceStructure object instead of
Mono.empty, also added the analytics call back.
The issue has started in sentry because a snippet has recently been
added to expect some response from server, if the response is empty it
throws error
Fixes#23675
#### Type of change
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [x] Manual
- [x] Jest
- [ ] Cypress
## 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
## Description
After forking an application, the reconnect modal appears. In the
reconnect modal, it's not possible to reauthorize the google sheets
plugin. This PR fixes the problem.
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes#24566
> if no issue exists, please create an issue and ask the maintainers
about this first
>
>
#### Media
> A video or a GIF is preferred. when using Loom, don’t embed because it
looks like it’s a GIF. instead, just link to the video
>
>
#### Type of change
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
## 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
- [ ] 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
- [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
## Description
Have placed a more specific unique index on datasourceStorageStructure
collection. Applying the index wouldn't cause any problems because of
general uniqueness already existing.
> TLDR; changing the index for datasourceStorageStructure collection
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes#24628
#### Type of change
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [ ] Manual
#### Test Plan
> Add Testsmith test cases links that relate to this PR
>
>
## 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
## Description
Added the execution time for the individual flows in the git ops -
commit and status. This data will be sued to analyse the time consumed
and improve the performance of these API's.
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/24312
#### 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?
- [ ] Manual
- [ ] Jest
- [ ] Cypress
#### Test Plan
#### Issues raised during DP testing
## Checklist:
#### Dev activity
- [ ] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [ ] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [ ] My changes generate no new warnings
- [ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [ ] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag
#### QA activity:
- [ ] [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
## Description
Updated the error message for rebase during the conflicts state
Fixes https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/24391
#### 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
- [ ] Manual
- [ ] Jest
- [ ] Cypress
#### Test Plan
#### Issues raised during DP testing
## Checklist:
#### Dev activity
- [ ] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [ ] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [ ] My changes generate no new warnings
- [ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [ ] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag
#### QA activity:
- [ ] [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: Parthvi <80334441+Parthvi12@users.noreply.github.com>
## EnvironmentId field was not getting saved in
datasourceStorageStructure save call. refactored calls to accommodate
that.
> Draft pr for review. would be closed after test and review
## Description
This PR adds permission checks on individual resources as well. This
will allow the case when an user does not have access to all the pages
of an application but trying to update the application from JSON.
The permission checks for import-export are not centralized today. There
are a lot of if-else inside the function that is responsible for the
import-export. This PR removes the permission checks from the core
process and move them to the wrapper functions which invokes this
process.
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes#22821
## Description
Added the git rebase to the discard flow. This is to avoid the push
failure when due to branch protection rules.
Prev, it was discard and pull. This flow had above mentioned issue where
if the branch protection rule was present, then the local branch would
be in a bad state.
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/23989
#### Type of change
- New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [ ] Manual
#### Test Plan
> Add Testsmith test cases links that relate to this PR
>
>
#### Issues raised during DP testing
> Link issues raised during DP testing for better visiblity and tracking
(copy link from comments dropped on this PR)
>
>
>
## Checklist:
#### Dev activity
- [ ] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [ ] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [ ] My changes generate no new warnings
- [ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [ ] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag
#### QA activity:
- [ ] [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: brayn003 <rudra@appsmith.com>
Co-authored-by: Parthvi Goswami <parthvigoswami@Parthvis-MacBook-Pro.local>
## 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>
This PR fixes an issue that's triggered due to merge conflicts. We
accidentally removed the code from the restore snapshot service that
replaces the actual ids with default ids when application is connected
to git.
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes#22956
## Description
> This PR resets the `forkingEnabled` field when the application is
forked/cloned or imported in the newly created app.
Fixes#23584
#### Type of change
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
## Testing
>
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [x] JUnit
#### 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/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
## Description
This PR embeds the snapshot time with the response to get pages API so
that client does not need to trigger another API. It'll also help to get
rid of the 404 error for get snapshot API which floods our logs.
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes#23701
#### 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?
- [x] Manual
- [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/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
## Description
> A malformed body (multipart form) for the /execute endpoint leads to
an error on UI showing: "invalid parameter: executeActionDTO".
> This has now been changed in this pr to show error as: "The request
could not be understood by the server due to malformed syntax."
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes#23250 (partly)
#### Type of change
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
## 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
- [ ] Jest
- [ ] Cypress
>
>
#### Test Plan
> This can be tested by calling /execute endpoint with malformed form
data since replicating this issue using UI is unreliable. The UI in
general doesn't produce a malformed request body.
## 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
Starts to use the datasource storage collection to store configs moving
forward. WIP
---------
Co-authored-by: Manish Kumar <107841575+sondermanish@users.noreply.github.com>
## Description
Details are provided in the connected issue.
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes#23027
#### Type of change
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
## 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.
- [x] JUnit
#### 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
## Description
We've ended up with two services for import and export - one for file
import and another one for git import. The code is duplicated in both of
the services. This PR merges the services into a single one.
Fixes#22940
## Description
## Type of change
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Manual
- Jest
- Cypress
### Test Plan
> Add Testsmith test cases links that relate to this PR
### Issues raised during DP testing
> Link issues raised during DP testing for better visiblity and tracking
(copy link from comments dropped on this PR)
## Checklist:
### Dev activity
- [ ] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [ ] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [ ] My changes generate no new warnings
- [ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [ ] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag
### QA activity:
- [ ] Test plan has been approved by relevant developers
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by QA
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by either SDET or
manual QA
- [ ] Organized project review call with relevant stakeholders after
Round 1/2 of QA
- [ ] Added Test Plan Approved label after reveiwing all Cypress test
## Description
The restore snapshot API returns the Application object that was
restored. In current implementation, it returns pages with `_id` as the
`id`. This creates problem when the Application is Git connected because
no page will be found with the _id and branch name. This PR fixes this
problem by replacing the `id` with the `defaultPageId`.
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes#22956
## Description
This PR makes the Intercom consent flag true always for the cloud-hosted
version.
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes#23214
#### 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
- [x] JUnit
- [ ] 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
- [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
## Description
> This PR sets a field `isPartialImport` in the
`/{defaultApplicationId}/fork/{workspaceId}` POST API response, based on
which the client will show the reconnection modal.
> If the `isPartialImport` field is True, the client has to show the
reconnection modal.
> Earlier, this field was only added as part of the Import flow and not
the forking flow, hence the reconnect datasource modal was only shown
while importing an app from JSON when datasource credentials are not
present.
This PR will solve the following issues:
1. Create a new field `forkWithConfiguration` that will represent
whether datasource credentials will be shared while forking or not.
Issue #21691 (Initial PR #22157, but had to be reverted due to the
reconnection modal functionality, not being present in the forking code)
2. Enable Reconnection Datasource Modal while forking an app if
datasource credentials are not shared. Issue #22305
3. Reset flags `forkWithConfiguration` and `exportWithConfiguration` to
False when forking/cloning/exporting an app. Issues #22165#22166
4. Reconnect Datasource Modal is not being triggered when forking apps
using Google Sheets datasource.
https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/16767
## Frontend changes
Fronted changes involve showing the reconnect modal depending of the
flag sent by the backend post forking. So far on prod datasources need
not require re-authentication, with this change they will be prompted to
re-authenticate.
Cypress tests will be pushed post merging this PR as cypress CI uses
release backend. Have created a PR for it
d703a00a7c (diff-2f04da010b929ec86d1064b51ce570cc33fee7481997ff5477a48e3527773dd9R7)https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/67054171/234506804-f1b5f21b-dd4d-4616-8cfe-6b06649d5df6.mov
## Deploy preview
https://ce-22390.dp.appsmith.com/Fixes#22305
Fixes https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/22609
## Type of change
- Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing
functionality to not work as expected)
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Manual
- JUnit
- Cypress
### Test Plan
-
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1vGYaKHtl8-g7--zBEAP219DCZLhoNah6IwjiijJlQAc/edit#gid=0
### 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:
- [X] Test plan has been approved by relevant developers
- [X] Test plan has been peer reviewed by QA
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by either SDET or
manual QA
- [ ] Organized project review call with relevant stakeholders after
Round 1/2 of QA
- [ ] Added Test Plan Approved label after reveiwing all Cypress test
---------
Co-authored-by: akash-codemonk <67054171+akash-codemonk@users.noreply.github.com>
## Description
> TL;DR: Separating the DatasourceConfiguration as a new collection to
accommodate for environments
This PR adds services and models for DatasourceConfigurationStorage,
which will now hold the datasourceConfiguration previously held in
Datasource. Additionally, DatasourceConfigurationStorage will also hold
invalids and messages from the datasource. It's indexed on datasourceId
and environmentId.
This PR doesn't change the way Datasource consumes and keeps
datasourceConfiguration. This will be followed by other PR which will
change consumption of datasourceConfiguration into a transitory field
### Changes Made:
- Created DatasourceConfigurationStorage model with datasourceId,
environmentId, datasourceConfiguration, invalids, and messages fields.
- Created DatasourceConfigurationStorageRepository interface and
implementation for managing DatasourceConfigurationStorage in the
database.
- Added DatasourceConfigurationStorageService for performing CRUD
operations on DatasourceConfigurationStorage.
- TODO : Update DatasourceService to use
DatasourceConfigurationStorageService for managing
DatasourceConfigurationStorage.
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith-ee/issues/1339
#### 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
- [ ] 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
## Description
When the token fetched from client credentials grant type in oauth2 is
expired, a request to the token endpoint is made to fetch a new token.
But sometimes the token endpoint fail. It can be intermittent failure, a
retry will fetch the desired token.
When the failure occurs, the datasource context mono goes into an error
state. As this mono is cached, all the subsequent authenticated api
calls from the user fetches the cached error mono resulting in failures
and thus the token endpoint is never retried.
For the fix, while checking if datasource context is valid, added the
check if its in a failed state. If yes, then the context will be
considered invalid.
Fixes#20538
## Type of change
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
## How Has This Been Tested
- Manual
## Checklist:
### Dev activity
- [x] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [ ] My changes generate no new warnings
- [ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [ ] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag
### QA activity:
- [ ] Test plan has been approved by relevant developers
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by QA
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by either SDET or
manual QA
- [ ] Organized project review call with relevant stakeholders after
Round 1/2 of QA
- [ ] Added Test Plan Approved label after reveiwing all Cypress test
## Description
>TL;DR: Added suffix retry if name clashes on creating an application.
## Issue:
When multiple users are trying to create an app on a common
organization, the changes for newly added app is not real-time hence
there's a conflict on app name causing an error. This error asks user to
contact Appsmith support, but a simple page refresh loads the new app.
Issue: #7401
## Solution:
Added suffix retry if name clashes on creating an application. With this
change, the above issue will not happen and in case of name conflict new
application will be created with a suffix added in the name. E.g
UntitledApplication 1 (1).
## Changes:
1. Added retry suffix method in the ApplicationServiceCEImpl for name
clash only.
2. Renamed createDefault method to createDefaultApplication for better
readability.
3. Removed AppsmithError and AppsmithErrorCode. Not required with
current change.
4. Updated cloneApplicationDocument method in
ExamplesWorkspaceClonerCEImpl to directly call createDefaultApplication
with contains suffix retry logic.
5. Removed same retry suffix method which is used in
ExamplesWorkspaceClonerCEImpl. Not required.
6. Updated test case for this change.
Fixes#7401
## Type of change
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Manual : Tested by using backend api.
- JUnit
### 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
## Description
### Issue:
Need to add userPermissions in response to newPages Api inside pages
array: These are the APIs
/v1/pages?applicationId={applicationId}&mode={mode} - Get method
/v1/pages/application/:applicationId - Get method
### Solution:
Added userPermissions in the response of the above APIs.
### Changes:
These are the changes done in the following file to add userPermission
in the newPage Api response
1. New FieldName added which is used in query
2. userPermission attribute added in PageNameIdDTO
3. userPermission coming from db set to response in NewPageServiceCEImpl
4. Test cases updated
Fix#21887
## How Has This Been Tested?
1. Manual testing through postman and UI
2. Junit
### 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
## Description
> This PR adds a second layer validation to the basic mime type
validation that's in place which checks the file extension.
> If the `ImageIO.read()` library returns null for .png/.jpeg type
files, it indicates a corrupted file upload, hence it returns
VALIDATION_FAILURE.
Fixes#22592
## Type of change
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
## How Has This Been Tested?
- JUnit
## Checklist:
### Dev activity
- [x] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] My changes generate no new warnings
- [x] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [x] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag
### QA activity:
- [ ] Test plan has been approved by relevant developers
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by QA
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by either SDET or
manual QA
- [ ] Organized project review call with relevant stakeholders after
Round 1/2 of QA
- [ ] Added Test Plan Approved label after reveiwing all Cypress test
---------
Co-authored-by: Anand Srinivasan <anand.a.srinivasan@outlook.com>
## Description
> This PR adds a validation regex for display name, it allows for
Accented characters such as (ä ö ü è ß) etc, and alphanumeric with some
special characters dot (.), apostrophe ('), hyphen (-) and spaces.
> It also allows for chinese characters, eg. 황현미
Fixes#22578
## Type of change
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
## How Has This Been Tested?
- JUnit
### Test Plan
> Add Testsmith test cases links that relate to this PR
### Issues raised during DP testing
> Link issues raised during DP testing for better visiblity and tracking
(copy link from comments dropped on this PR)
## Checklist:
### Dev activity
- [x] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] My changes generate no new warnings
- [x] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [x] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag
### QA activity:
- [ ] Test plan has been approved by relevant developers
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by QA
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by either SDET or
manual QA
- [ ] Organized project review call with relevant stakeholders after
Round 1/2 of QA
- [ ] Added Test Plan Approved label after reveiwing all Cypress test
---------
Co-authored-by: Anand Srinivasan <anand.a.srinivasan@outlook.com>
This PR is a follow up to #22847 to make CRUD templates work again.
TODO:
- [x] Wait for #22847 to get merged and then uncomment generate CRUD
tests
- [ ] Test all generate CRUD flows
---------
Co-authored-by: Nikhil Nandagopal <nikhil.nandagopal@gmail.com>
## Description
This PR is a structural change to our database and introduces no change
in functionality.
Since generate CRUD functionality is controlled by an Appsmith app in
release env, this PR will end up breaking generate CRUD temporarily.
Fixes https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith-ee/issues/1336
## Type of change
- Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception)
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Manual
- Jest
### Test Plan
Available
[here](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1dP-x8b7gBFOfXtVBwr-A0I4M0nTiJmeysZO2ExI1Hhk/edit#gid=1966367141)
### Issues raised during DP testing
> Link issues raised during DP testing for better visiblity and tracking
(copy link from comments dropped on this PR)
## Checklist:
### Dev activity
- [x] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [ ] My changes generate no new warnings
- [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:
- [x] Test plan has been approved by relevant developers
- [x] Test plan has been peer reviewed by QA
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by either SDET or
manual QA
- [ ] Organized project review call with relevant stakeholders after
Round 1/2 of QA
- [ ] Added Test Plan Approved label after reveiwing all Cypress test
## Description
We recently introduced a way to update the existing application via JSON
import. We want this feature to be available for only non-git connected
application. This is to avoid feature duplication in Appsmith platform
as Git connected application can perform the backup and sync with git
pull, git merge etc.
Fixes https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/22832,
https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/22831
## Type of change
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
- New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Manual
- JUnit
## Checklist:
### Dev activity
- [x] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] My changes generate no new warnings
- [x] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [x] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag
### QA activity:
- [ ] Test plan has been approved by relevant developers
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by QA
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by either SDET or
manual QA
- [ ] Organized project review call with relevant stakeholders after
Round 1/2 of QA
- [ ] Added Test Plan Approved label after reveiwing all Cypress test
## Description
When a user wants to develop in an instance and deploy in another, the
only way to update an app is via Git. In scenarios where this is not
possible (either in Airgapped scenarios or due to the user's choice),
the user cannot update the deployed app. This PR allows a user to update
an existing app via JSON import. The original references will be
maintained where applicable
> TL;DR: Provide a way to update the existing application via JSON
import in situations where Git sync is not an option.
Fixes#22075
### How to test?
1. Create a new workspace `WS1`
2. Create new app
3. Generate CRUD page
4. Export the application
5. Create new workspace lets's call this as `WS2` and import the
exported app from step 4
6. Create another page `pageCreatedInWS2` in imported application in
`WS2`
7. Export the updated application from `WS2`
8. Update existing application created in step 2 in `WS1` by importing
the application which is exported from `WS2` in step 7
9. Updated application should have `pageCreatedInWS2` page
```
Curl for ref:
curl --location '{{base_url}}/api/v1/applications/import/{{workspaceId}}?applicationId={{applicationId}}' \
--header 'Cookie: SESSION={{cookieSessionId}}' \
--header 'X-Requested-By: Appsmith' \
--form 'file=@{{JSON_FILE_TO_IMPORT}}'
```
## Type of change
- New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
- This change requires a documentation update
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Manual
- JUnit
## Checklist:
### Dev activity
- [x] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] My changes generate no new warnings
- [x] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [x] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag
### QA activity:
- [ ] Test plan has been approved by relevant developers
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by QA
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by either SDET or
manual QA
- [ ] Organized project review call with relevant stakeholders after
Round 1/2 of QA
- [ ] Added Test Plan Approved label after reveiwing all Cypress test
## Description
Currently, we try to upload large files by converting their binaries
into strings which leads to bloat in size. This is because converting to
bytes in a multi-byte encoding usually takes a larger space and white
characters are also included. We were also doing multiple modifications
which were just adding to the bloat.
Hence, we are now converting the binary data into an array buffer to
prevent this. This buffer is added to the multi-part form data request
as a new part and we add a pointer in the pace of the data which used to
be present earlier. This allows us to have minimal bloat on the payload
while sending the request.
TLDR: fix for uploading large files by changing the data type used for
upload.
*TODO:*
- [x] Client side payload changes
- [x] Server side double escape logic fixes
- [x] Server side tests
- [x] Server side refactor
- [ ] Cypress tests
Fixes#20642
Media
## Type of change
- New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Manual
### Test Plan
> Add Testsmith test cases links that relate to this PR
### Issues raised during DP testing
> Link issues raised during DP testing for better visiblity and tracking
(copy link from comments dropped on this PR)
## Checklist:
### Dev activity
- [x] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] My changes generate no new warnings
- [ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [x] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag
### QA activity:
- [ ] Test plan has been approved by relevant developers
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by QA
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by either SDET or
manual QA
- [ ] Organized project review call with relevant stakeholders after
Round 1/2 of QA
- [ ] Added Test Plan Approved label after reveiwing all Cypress test
---------
Co-authored-by: Nidhi Nair <nidhi@appsmith.com>
## Description
Currently, there is no way for us to know any details about a user when
they reach out to support via Intercom. Thus, we are not able to offer
the right level of support to them basis their current plan.
The idea is to ask for consent to share user details with Appsmith
before Intercom is enabled for a user, the basis which support can
determine the right level of support.
This PR helps to store and retrieve the flag variable for a particular
user which says whether the consent was given or not.
Fixes#22611
## Type of change
- New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Manual
- JUnit
## Checklist:
### Dev activity
- [x] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] My changes generate no new warnings
- [x] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [x] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag
### QA activity:
- [ ] Test plan has been approved by relevant developers
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by QA
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by either SDET or
manual QA
- [ ] Organized project review call with relevant stakeholders after
Round 1/2 of QA
- [ ] Added Test Plan Approved label after reveiwing all Cypress test
## Description
> Change the update workspace flow to update using the MongoTemplate
`updateFirst` rather than Repository `save`
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
- Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception)
## How Has This Been Tested?
> `testWorkspaceUpdate_checkAdditionalFieldsArePresentAfterUpdate`
### Test Plan
> Add Testsmith test cases links that relate to this PR
### Issues raised during DP testing
> Link issues raised during DP testing for better visiblity and tracking
(copy link from comments dropped on this PR)
## Checklist:
### Dev activity
- [x] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] My changes generate no new warnings
- [x] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [x] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag
### QA activity:
- [ ] Test plan has been approved by relevant developers
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by QA
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by either SDET or
manual QA
- [ ] Organized project review call with relevant stakeholders after
Round 1/2 of QA
- [ ] Added Test Plan Approved label after reveiwing all Cypress test
---------
Co-authored-by: Nilesh Sarupriya <20905988+nsarupr@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Aishwarya UR <aishwarya@appsmith.com>
## Description
> This PR reverts the changes done in #22157
> Another PR will be raised post the blockers are fixed to create the
`forkWithConfiguration` field as this can impact the users forking their
apps directly.
Fixes#21691
## Type of change
> Please delete options that are not relevant.
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
- New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
- Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing
functionality to not work as expected)
- Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception)
- This change requires a documentation update
## How Has This Been Tested?
> Please describe the tests that you ran to verify your changes. Provide
instructions, so we can reproduce.
> Please also list any relevant details for your test configuration.
> Delete anything that is not important
- Manual
- Jest
- Cypress
### Test Plan
> Add Testsmith test cases links that relate to this PR
### Issues raised during DP testing
> Link issues raised during DP testing for better visiblity and tracking
(copy link from comments dropped on this PR)
## Checklist:
### Dev activity
- [ ] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [ ] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [ ] My changes generate no new warnings
- [ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [ ] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag
### QA activity:
- [ ] Test plan has been approved by relevant developers
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by QA
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by either SDET or
manual QA
- [ ] Organized project review call with relevant stakeholders after
Round 1/2 of QA
- [ ] Added Test Plan Approved label after reveiwing all Cypress test
## Description
For air gap instances, public internet will be restricted and as a
result, cron jobs that depend on cloud-services won't be supported. As a
part of this, the current PR creates a helper class to have a custom
implementation on the EE repo.
Corresponding EE PR:
https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith-ee/pull/1252Fixes#21522#21521#21882
## Type of change
- New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Manual
## Checklist:
### Dev activity
- [x] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] My changes generate no new warnings
- [ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [ ] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag
### QA activity:
- [ ] Test plan has been approved by relevant developers
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by QA
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by either SDET or
manual QA
- [ ] Organized project review call with relevant stakeholders after
Round 1/2 of QA
- [ ] Added Test Plan Approved label after reveiwing all Cypress test
## Description
This PR sets the `Public` as default view class for JsonView. It'll be
overridden if the controller has it's another view set. This will
prevent any accidental case when JsonView annotation is missing.
Fixes#21948
## Description
> This PR removes applicationDetail initialisation for empty object from
the publish application method.
> Due to the initialisation while publishing, git was detecting some
changes in the application json and only these two fields were getting
set in a separate commit.
> With this fix, these fields will be set only when a user explicitly
sets these properties.
Fixes#21727
## Type of change
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
## How Has This Been Tested?
- JUnit
### Test Plan
> Add Testsmith test cases links that relate to this PR
### Issues raised during DP testing
> Link issues raised during DP testing for better visiblity and tracking
(copy link from comments dropped on this PR)
## Checklist:
### Dev activity
- [x] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] My changes generate no new warnings
- [x] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [x] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag
### QA activity:
- [ ] Test plan has been approved by relevant developers
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by QA
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by either SDET or
manual QA
- [ ] Organized project review call with relevant stakeholders after
Round 1/2 of QA
- [ ] Added Test Plan Approved label after reveiwing all Cypress test
## Description
> This is a helper PR which contains the following changes:
> - Remove Appsmith Roles: `APPLICATION_DEVELOPER`/ `APPLICATION_VIEWER`
> - `PolicyGenerator.getChildPermissions`: Get all hierarechical
permissions for an entity, given a permission.
> - Deprecate `permissions` data member in `PermissionGroup.java`
> - Refactor `MemberInfoDTO.java` to hold multiple roles.
> - Split `PermissionGroupInfoDTO.java`
> - `TextUtils. generateDefaultRoleNameForResource(String roleType,
String resourceName)` added
Fixes https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/20719
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)
## How Has This Been Tested?
> The existing test cases should pass and the newer test cases have been
written in the EE PR
### 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:
- [ ] 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: Nilesh Sarupriya <20905988+nsarupr@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Ankita Kinger <ankita@appsmith.com>
## Description
When data integrity is violated in the case of `DuplicateKeyException`
sensitive information like Appsmith URI is exposed to error messages.
This is a big security risk that needs to be fixed and any error message
shouldn't display Appsmith server credentials.
[RCA](https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/21568#issuecomment-1475746719)
[Slack
Thread](https://theappsmith.slack.com/archives/C0423TJFUJK/p1679082313650259)
Fixes#21568
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)
- Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception)
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Manual
- JUnit
### Test Plan
> Add Testsmith test cases links that relate to this PR
### Issues raised during DP testing
> Link issues raised during DP testing for better visiblity and tracking
(copy link from comments dropped on this PR)
## Checklist:
### Dev activity
- [x] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] My changes generate no new warnings
- [x] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [x] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag
### QA activity:
- [ ] Test plan has been approved by relevant developers
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by QA
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by either SDET or
manual QA
- [ ] Organized project review call with relevant stakeholders after
Round 1/2 of QA
- [ ] Added Test Plan Approved label after reveiwing all Cypress test
Co-authored-by: Aishwarya UR <aishwarya@appsmith.com>
## Description
File picker implementation for Limiting Gsheet Access requires google
sheet project id. The changes in this PR gets the gsheet project id from
cloud-services and returns it back to client. Client then uses this
project id to open file picker and select required files.
Fixes https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/21298,
https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/21362
Media
> A video or a GIF is preferred. when using Loom, don’t embed because it
looks like it’s a GIF. instead, just link to the video
## Type of change
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Manual
### 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:
- [ ] Test plan has been approved by relevant developers
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by QA
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by either SDET or
manual QA
- [ ] Organized project review call with relevant stakeholders after
Round 1/2 of QA
- [ ] Added Test Plan Approved label after reveiwing all Cypress test
---------
Co-authored-by: “sneha122” <“sneha@appsmith.com”>
In summary, the change comprises adding `JsonView` annotations on
domain/model fields, controller methods, and arguments.
applying JsonView annotation on controller methods will include fields
which are marked with the same view in domain objects.
Similarly, usage on controller method arguments will only deserialize
the fields which are marked with same view in Domain object, which is
helpful in case we don't want the client to send some fields for
security reasons.
This change replaces the previous use of JsonIgnore for restricting
fields in API response and allows for more flexibility and will enable
us to have fine-grain control over fields serialized for different
contexts, such as API response, export, and import.
The following views are defined as of now.
`View.Internal` - View used to serialize for internal use. It inherits
from `Views.Public` and `Views.Export`, so it will also include those
fields.
`Views.Public` - View used for API request/response.
`Views.Export` - View used for making field exportable, like in the case
of Git sync and file export.
Also, we can define more views by adding an interface inside the Views
class and Views can also inherit fields marked with different view by
simple interface inheritance.
A small tutorial on JsonView - [Jackson JSON Views |
Baeldung](https://www.baeldung.com/jackson-json-view-annotation)
---------
Signed-off-by: Sidhant Goel <sidhant@appsmith.com>
Co-authored-by: Aishwarya UR <aishwarya@appsmith.com>
Co-authored-by: Nayan <nayan@appsmith.com>
## Description
> add utility to check if a permission is for an entity
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
- Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception)
## How Has This Been Tested?
> `testIsPermissionForEntity`
### Test Plan
> Add Testsmith test cases links that relate to this PR
### Issues raised during DP testing
> Link issues raised during DP testing for better visiblity and tracking
(copy link from comments dropped on this PR)
## Checklist:
### Dev activity
- [x] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] My changes generate no new warnings
- [x] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [x] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag
### QA activity:
- [ ] Test plan has been approved by relevant developers
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by QA
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by either SDET or
manual QA
- [ ] Organized project review call with relevant stakeholders after
Round 1/2 of QA
- [ ] Added Test Plan Approved label after reveiwing all Cypress test
---------
Co-authored-by: Nilesh Sarupriya <20905988+nsarupr@users.noreply.github.com>
## Description
This PR refactors the discard flow by removing the Pull flow. It'll only
discard local changes and revert to the last committed version.
Fixes#20622
> if no issue exists, please create an issue and ask the maintainers
about this first
## Description
Added and updated tests for the leave workspace flow.
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: Nilesh Sarupriya <nilesh@appsmith.com>
Co-authored-by: Nilesh Sarupriya <20905988+nsarupr@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: nilansh <nilansh@appsmith.com>
## Description
> This PR refactors the backend code and the `Application` model to
accumulate the newly added published and unpublished fields into
`ApplicationDetail`
Fixes#19280
## Type of change
- Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing
functionality to not work as expected)
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Manual
- JUnit
## Checklist:
### Dev activity
- [x] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] My changes generate no new warnings
- [x] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [x] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag
### QA activity:
- [ ] Test plan has been approved by relevant developers
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by QA
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by either SDET or
manual QA
- [ ] Organized project review call with relevant stakeholders after
Round 1/2 of QA
- [ ] Added Test Plan Approved label after reveiwing all Cypress test
## Description
When an application is cloned, it's not published. As a result if the
user tries to open the new application in view mode, it throws error.
This PR fixes it.
Fixes#21309
Media
> A video or a GIF is preferred. when using Loom, don’t embed because it
looks like it’s a GIF. instead, just link to the video
## Type of change
> Please delete options that are not relevant.
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
## How Has This Been Tested?
> Please describe the tests that you ran to verify your changes. Provide
instructions, so we can reproduce.
> Please also list any relevant details for your test configuration.
> Delete anything that is not important
- Manual
- JUnit test
### 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
## Description
> This PR fixes the flaky test
`publishApplication_withPageIconSet_success` by maintaining the page
order of the application pages
Fixes#21220
## Type of change
- Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception)
## How Has This Been Tested?
- JUnit
## Checklist:
### Dev activity
- [x] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] My changes generate no new warnings
- [ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [x] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag
### QA activity:
- [ ] Test plan has been approved by relevant developers
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by QA
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by either SDET or
manual QA
- [ ] Organized project review call with relevant stakeholders after
Round 1/2 of QA
- [ ] Added Test Plan Approved label after reveiwing all Cypress test
## Description
This PR adds the option to delete an application snapshot in the
following cases:
- A DELETE API that'll delete an application snapshot
- The restore API should delete the underlying application snapshot if
the restore is successful
Fixes#21215
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)
## 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
- JUnit tests
### 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
## Description
We need an API to update multiple page layouts with a single request.
For the mobile responsiveness project, the client migrates an existing
app from fixed layout to auto layout. After the migration is done, it
needs to send the updated layout one by one. With this new API, the
client needs to make a single API call to update all the layouts.
Fixes#21104
## Description
This PR adds a way to take a snapshot of an application on the database.
That snapshot can be restored to the application.
Under the hood it uses the Export-Import feature.
Fixes#19720
## Description
> Migrate the Default Workspace Id field in Permission Group to a
combination of Default Domain Id and Default Domain Reference field.
Fixes https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/20500
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)
## How Has This Been Tested?
> Tested manually
### 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:
- [ ] 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: Nilesh Sarupriya <20905988+nsarupr@users.noreply.github.com>
## Description
> In Enterprise edition, the environments will be created by default
when we create a new workspace.
However to facilitate those changes, and to keep code maintainable,
these snippets are neccesary.
> This PR has refactored workspace creation flow into separate methods
to
- allow addition of resourceIds in `permissionGroup` permissions in EE.
- added static method to reduce code repeatability
> This PR has changed some methods in workspaceServiceTest, those
methods were using same workspace object to create new workspaces when
called in a loop, however the workspace object used to create was
assigned id after first `workspaceService.create` call, the subsequent
create calls returned same workspace object, furthermore the linked
dependents were new each time causing problem.
As a fix, creating a new workspace object each time for create calls in
loop.
## TL;DR
> Refactor to facilitate the default environment creation PR in the EE
Fixes https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/20790
> This issue is a facilitator PR for [default environments with
workspace PR](https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith-ee/pull/1027).
## Type of change
- Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception)
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Manual
## Checklist:
### Dev activity
- [x] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [ ] My changes generate no new warnings
- [ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [x] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag
## Description
This PR updates the error logs
- Establishing a consistent format for all error messages.
- Revising error titles and details for improved understanding.
- Compiling internal documentation of all error categories,
subcategories, and error descriptions.
Updated Error Interface:
https://www.notion.so/appsmith/Error-Interface-for-Plugin-Execution-Error-7b3f5323ba4c40bfad281ae717ccf79b
PRD:
https://www.notion.so/appsmith/PRD-Error-Handling-Framework-4ac9747057fd4105a9d52cb8b42f4452?pvs=4#008e9c79ff3c484abf0250a5416cf052
>TL;DR
Fixes #
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)
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Manual
- Jest
- Cypress
### Test Plan
### Issues raised during DP testing
## Checklist:
### Dev activity
- [x] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] My changes generate no new warnings
- [x] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [x] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [x] PR is being merged under a feature flag
### QA activity:
- [ ] Test plan has been approved by relevant developers
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by QA
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by either SDET or
manual QA
- [ ] Organized project review call with relevant stakeholders after
Round 1/2 of QA
- [ ] Added Test Plan Approved label after reveiwing all Cypress test
---------
Co-authored-by: subrata <subrata@appsmith.com>
## Description
> Add file locking using redis with retry. Helpful when multiple users
are trying to perform git actions in the Appsmith UI.
Fixes#10856Fixes#14366
## Type of change
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Test A
- Test B
## Checklist:
- [x] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [ ] 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
---------
Co-authored-by: Aishwarya UR <aishwarya@appsmith.com>
Co-authored-by: Sidhant Goel <sidhant@appsmith.com>
Co-authored-by: Parthvi Goswami <parthvigoswami@Parthvis-MacBook-Pro.local>
Co-authored-by: System Administrator <root@Parthvis-MacBook-Pro.local>
## Description
> We are working on usage and billing feature and as a part of usage
calculation, we are recording the usage pulses at 1 hr intervals today.
As the business cases are evolving we received a request to log the
pulses for every 5mins instead of an hour. Just to provide the existing
stats for the past month on our cloud alone we have received 155545
pulses with 1hr intervals between the pulses. Also going forward if are
doing it with 5mins intervals this count is going to increase by 12
folds. Now considering we will not be monetising the cloud platform
until multi-tenancy is out, do we have usecase where we still need the
usage data? If not we would like to stop recording these usage pulses on
Appsmith cloud and bring it back after multitenancy is live. Until then
self-hosted EE instances will report the pulses as expected.
> TL;DR: Remove logging of usage pulses for Appsmith cloud not to bloat
the cloud services DB, as these pulses will not be used unless the
multi-tenancy is introduced
Fixes https://github.com/appsmithorg/cloud-services/issues/400
## Type of change
- Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception)
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Manual
- JUnit
## 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:
- [ ] Test plan has been approved by relevant developers
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by QA
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by either SDET or
manual QA
- [ ] Organized project review call with relevant stakeholders after
Round 1/2 of QA
- [ ] Added Test Plan Approved label after reveiwing all Cypress test
## Description
Import application flow is a multi-stage process where we touch all the
mongo DB collections required to store the application in DB, which
today includes pages, actions, JSObjects, etc. When the flow is complete
then only we can say the application is successfully imported and DB
won't have any stale objects stored. But in a negative scenario where
the flow might break because of some unknown exceptions, objects stored
earlier become stale and reside in DB forever. With this PR we are
establishing the infra for transactions to avoid saving stale DB
objects. This is achieved by a rollback mechanism in case an exception
is thrown in the middle of execution.
Note: Since transactions are built on concepts of logical sessions they
require mecahnics (like oplog) which are only available in replica set
environment.
You can always convert a standalone to a single noded replica set and
transactions will work with this one node.
[https://docs.mongodb.com/manual/tutorial/convert-standalone-to-replica-set/](https://docs.mongodb.com/manual/tutorial/convert-standalone-to-replica-set/?_ga=2.53712296.1453502529.1669195955-2065030687.1664009965)
```
For local dev earlier we used to run the single node without replica set. Henceforth if we want to take the advantage of transactions please follow the steps to run mongod single node in local with replica set:
- Upgrade the MongoDB version to 4.4 or higher if it’s 4.2 or lower (https://www.mongodb.com/docs/manual/release-notes/4.4/#std-label-4.4-upgrade)
- Close the mongoDB instance running in your local
- Start the mongoDB in replica set mode and initiate the replica set
- mongod --port 27017 --dbpath <path/to/db> --replSet <replica-set-name> && mongo --eval “rs.initiate()”
- One can use following commands to check replica set status:
- mongo appsmith
- rs.status()
- By this time you should have the mongo running with replica set
```
<img width="1788" alt="Screenshot 2022-07-01 at 10 31 27 PM"
src="https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/41686026/176944386-f9d94715-c0cf-4900-93b7-f73647132d60.png">
This also means mongodb connection string used in env file will now
include the replica-set name if one wants to leverage transactions:
`mongodb://localhost:27017/appsmith?replicaSet={replica-set-name}`
Fixes https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/14543
## Type of change
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
- This change requires a documentation update
## How Has This Been Tested?
> JUnit
> Manual test
## Checklist:
- [x] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [ ] 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
---------
Co-authored-by: Anagh Hegde <anagh@appsmith.com>
Co-authored-by: Aishwarya UR <aishwarya@appsmith.com>
## Description
TL;DR: This PR introduces metrics logging using native Spring support
for Micrometer. It includes a docker-compose to set up all the required
parts of this observability stack in the local environment as well.
In order to make use of this stack, please navigate to
`utils/observability` and execute the following command:
```
docker-compose up -d
```
The set up comes bundled with a default Grafana dashboard that can be
accessed at localhost:3001. Please feel free to switch the mapping ports
around in the docker-compose file.
This dashboard currently shows all http requests (sampled at 0.1 by
default), and the server side implementation has introduced some minimal
tracing for the `/api/v1/action/execute` endpoint. This means that you
can use the trace id from http server requests for this endpoint to
delve deeper into the spans exposed in this flow.
In case you would like to send trace information to another service,
please make use of the `APPSMITH_TRACING_ENDPOINT` variable. To override
the default sampling rate in your local (to say, 1), you can set that as
the value for the variable `APPSMITH_SAMPLING_PROBABILITY`.
Fixes#19153
## Type of change
- Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception)
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Manual
### Test Plan
No testing required, only needs regression after merge.
## 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
---------
Co-authored-by: Sumesh Pradhan <sumesh@appsmith.com>
## Description
- TL; DR , small Pr to add environmentName to Datasource-controller for
`test`, `structure`, and `trigger` flows. In order to adapt for
environments. There is a method addition in authenticationValidator, and
further refactor to avoid code duplicity.
- With Introduction of multiple environments we would have
configurations corresponding to each environment. In order to test these
configurations, we would require an environment parameter to be passed
as an argument, this could be done by passing an environment header with
the current datasource `test`, `structure`, and `trigger` flows,
however, since our community and enterprise flow uses the same code. We
require our community code to include the header which however, will not
be used in the community edition but it will have complete usage in
enterprise edition.
- A `validateAuthentication` method in `authenticationValidator`
interface has been loaded with an extra parameter (environmentId) for
environment support, EE changes will follow post the merge.
- `Datasource trigger and Datasource Structure flows`, required some
refactors to make it work with environments as well.
## Type of change
- Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception)
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Manual
- Jest
- Cypress
Existing test cases are adequate, just tweaked a few test cases to
accommodate changes.
## 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
