## Description
UnEvalTree, dataTree and configTree's entities needs to be extended on
EE to accommodate module inputs and different types of modules hence the
separation.
I have added few more sanity checks in the existing code which were
throwing errors/warning on EE.
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes # (issue number)
#### Media
> A video or a GIF is preferred. when using Loom, don’t embed because it
looks like it’s a GIF. instead, just link to the video
>
>
#### Type of change
- Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception)
>
>
>
## Testing
>
#### How Has This Been Tested?
> Please describe the tests that you ran to verify your changes. Also
list any relevant details for your test configuration.
> Delete anything that is not relevant
- [ ] Manual
- [ ] JUnit
- [ ] Jest
- [ ] Cypress
>
>
#### Test Plan
> Add Testsmith test cases links that relate to this PR
>
>
#### Issues raised during DP testing
> Link issues raised during DP testing for better visiblity and tracking
(copy link from comments dropped on this PR)
>
>
>
## Checklist:
#### Dev activity
- [ ] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [ ] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [ ] My changes generate no new warnings
- [ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [ ] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag
#### QA activity:
- [ ] [Speedbreak
features](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#speedbreakers-)
have been covered
- [ ] Test plan covers all impacted features and [areas of
interest](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#areas-of-interest-)
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by project stakeholders and other
QA members
- [ ] Manually tested functionality on DP
- [ ] We had an implementation alignment call with stakeholders post QA
Round 2
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by SDET/manual QA
- [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after Cypress tests were reviewed
- [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after JUnit tests were reviewed
## Description
The PR contains non integrated code changes for below new features, The
changes are not integrated to work but only contains the ground work
code changes that can be added to css based layout/ Anvil once that is
available in Release.
- **Widget Position observer-** Since we are moving to css based layout,
the positions of widgets will be unknown. To solve the issue we have
introduced the above feature that stores/updates position of widgets on
Redux state whenever a widget position updates. without manually
triggering any action
- **Widget Name on Canvas-** For the New Layout the existing widget name
is inconsistent as it would cut off or visually not visible. to solve
that the widget name will now be drawn on html canvas than it being a
dom node component
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes#26945Fixes#26948
#### Type of change
- Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception)
## Testing
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [ ] Manual
- [ ] JUnit
- [ ] Jest
#### Test Plan
> Add Testsmith test cases links that relate to this PR
#### Issues raised during DP testing
> Link issues raised during DP testing for better visiblity and tracking
(copy link from comments dropped on this PR)
>
>
>
## Checklist:
#### Dev activity
- [ ] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [ ] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [ ] My changes generate no new warnings
- [ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [ ] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag
#### QA activity:
- [ ] [Speedbreak
features](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#speedbreakers-)
have been covered
- [ ] Test plan covers all impacted features and [areas of
interest](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#areas-of-interest-)
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by project stakeholders and other
QA members
- [ ] Manually tested functionality on DP
- [ ] We had an implementation alignment call with stakeholders post QA
Round 2
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by SDET/manual QA
- [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after Cypress tests were reviewed
- [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after JUnit tests were reviewed
---------
Co-authored-by: Ashok Kumar M <35134347+marks0351@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Abhinav Jha <abhinav@appsmith.com>
> Pull Request Template
>
> Use this template to quickly create a well written pull request.
Delete all quotes before creating the pull request.
>
## Description
In This PR, we are cleaning up Canvas Widget implementation and taking
measures to remove it from the widget suite.
more detailed explanation of Why and How of the solution
[here](https://www.notion.so/Canvas-Widget-73776a3364ba42eb8f783c79046777d0)
In this solution we are going to remove implementation of Editing and
Layouting Specific implementation from Canvas Widget and create a new
view component which is Layout system specific.
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes#27003
#### Media
> A video or a GIF is preferred. when using Loom, don’t embed because it
looks like it’s a GIF. instead, just link to the video
>
>
#### Type of change
> Please delete options that are not relevant.
- Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception)
>
>
>
## Testing
>
#### How Has This Been Tested?
> Please describe the tests that you ran to verify your changes. Also
list any relevant details for your test configuration.
> Delete anything that is not relevant
- [ ] Manual
- [ ] JUnit
- [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
- [ ] 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
This PR adds a new type ANVIL in the acceptable app layout types.
In this PR,
BE changes:
- Anvil type is added to appPositioiningType enum.
FE changes:
- rename appPositioningType to layoutSystemType internally in all places
except the reducer and application payload.
- move certain layout system specific files into layout system folder
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes#26973
#### Type of change
- New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
## Testing
>
#### How Has This Been Tested?
> Please describe the tests that you ran to verify your changes. Also
list any relevant details for your test configuration.
> Delete anything that is not relevant
- [x] Manual
- [ ] JUnit
- [ ] Jest
- [ ] Cypress
>
>
#### Test Plan
> Add Testsmith test cases links that relate to this PR
>
>
#### Issues raised during DP testing
> Link issues raised during DP testing for better visiblity and tracking
(copy link from comments dropped on this PR)
>
>
>
## Checklist:
#### Dev activity
- [x] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [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
- [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
---------
Co-authored-by: Ashok Kumar M <35134347+marks0351@users.noreply.github.com>
## Description
1. Add new ```appPositioningType``` : ANVIL.
2. Create new code path and folder structure for Anvil layout system.
3. Move common pieces of functionalities between autoLayout and anvil to
anvil folder structure (e.g. ```CanvasResizer```).
4. Create ```AnvilFlexComponent```.
5. Use WDS Flex component in AnvilFlexComponent.
6. Pass min max size props in a data structure that is supported by
container queries in the Flex component.
e.g. min-width: { base: "120px", "480px": "200px" }
7. Supply the following flex properties (flex-grow flex-shrink
flex-basis) to widgets depending on their ```responsiveBehvaiour```:
a) Fill: ```flex: 1 1 0%;```
b) Hug: ```flex: 0 0 auto;```
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes # (issue number)
1. [#26987](https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/26987)
2. [#26609](https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/26609)
3. [#26611](https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/26611)
#### Type of change
- New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
## Testing
>
#### How Has This Been Tested?
> Please describe the tests that you ran to verify your changes. Also
list any relevant details for your test configuration.
> Delete anything that is not relevant
- [x] Manual
- [ ] JUnit
- [x] Jest
- [ ] Cypress
## Checklist:
#### Dev activity
- [x] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [ ] My changes generate no new warnings
- [x] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [ ] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [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
---------
Co-authored-by: Ashok Kumar M <35134347+marks0351@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Aswath K <aswath.sana@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: rahulramesha <rahul@appsmith.com>
Co-authored-by: rahulramesha <71900764+rahulramesha@users.noreply.github.com>
> Pull Request Template
>
> Use this template to quickly create a well written pull request.
Delete all quotes before creating the pull request.
>
## Description
There are multiple refactors and split for query module's creator flow
changes which involves module input -- it's a new entity introduced as
part of modules project
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes # (issue number)
Part of
https://app.zenhub.com/workspaces/modules-pod-63e0d668a7fea03850c89c6f/issues/gh/appsmithorg/appsmith/27352
#### Type of change
- Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception)
>
>
## Testing
>
#### How Has This Been Tested?
> Please describe the tests that you ran to verify your changes. Also
list any relevant details for your test configuration.
> Delete anything that is not relevant
- [ ] Manual
- [ ] JUnit
- [ ] Jest
- [ ] Cypress
>
>
#### Test Plan
> Add Testsmith test cases links that relate to this PR
>
>
#### Issues raised during DP testing
> Link issues raised during DP testing for better visiblity and tracking
(copy link from comments dropped on this PR)
>
>
>
## Checklist:
#### Dev activity
- [ ] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [ ] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [ ] My changes generate no new warnings
- [ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [ ] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag
#### QA activity:
- [ ] [Speedbreak
features](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#speedbreakers-)
have been covered
- [ ] Test plan covers all impacted features and [areas of
interest](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#areas-of-interest-)
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by project stakeholders and other
QA members
- [ ] Manually tested functionality on DP
- [ ] We had an implementation alignment call with stakeholders post QA
Round 2
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by SDET/manual QA
- [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after Cypress tests were reviewed
- [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after JUnit tests were reviewed
## Description
Splitting uiReducers to support modules on EE
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes [#27581](https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/27581)
#### Type of change
- Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception)
## Testing
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [x] Manual
- [ ] JUnit
- [ ] Jest
- [x] Cypress
## Checklist:
#### Dev activity
- [x] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] My changes generate no new warnings
- [ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [x] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag
#### QA activity:
- [ ] [Speedbreak
features](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#speedbreakers-)
have been covered
- [ ] Test plan covers all impacted features and [areas of
interest](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#areas-of-interest-)
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by project stakeholders and other
QA members
- [ ] Manually tested functionality on DP
- [ ] We had an implementation alignment call with stakeholders post QA
Round 2
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by SDET/manual QA
- [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after Cypress tests were reviewed
- [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after JUnit tests were reviewed
## Description
Splitting entities reducer for supporting more reducers on EE
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes [#27559](https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/27559)
#### Type of change
- Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception)
## Testing
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [x] Manual
- [ ] JUnit
- [ ] Jest
- [x] Cypress
## Checklist:
#### Dev activity
- [x] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] My changes generate no new warnings
- [ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [x] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag
#### QA activity:
- [ ] [Speedbreak
features](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#speedbreakers-)
have been covered
- [ ] Test plan covers all impacted features and [areas of
interest](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#areas-of-interest-)
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by project stakeholders and other
QA members
- [ ] Manually tested functionality on DP
- [ ] We had an implementation alignment call with stakeholders post QA
Round 2
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by SDET/manual QA
- [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after Cypress tests were reviewed
- [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after JUnit tests were reviewed
## Description
This PR handles case for which there is no update in SET_EVALUATED_TREE
action
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/27506
#### Media
> A video or a GIF is preferred. when using Loom, don’t embed because it
looks like it’s a GIF. instead, just link to the video
>
>
#### Type of change
> Please delete options that are not relevant.
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
- New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
- Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing
functionality to not work as expected)
- Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception)
- This change requires a documentation update
>
>
>
## Testing
>
#### How Has This Been Tested?
> Please describe the tests that you ran to verify your changes. Also
list any relevant details for your test configuration.
> Delete anything that is not relevant
- [ ] Manual
- [ ] JUnit
- [ ] Jest
- [ ] Cypress
>
>
#### Test Plan
> Add Testsmith test cases links that relate to this PR
>
>
#### Issues raised during DP testing
> Link issues raised during DP testing for better visiblity and tracking
(copy link from comments dropped on this PR)
>
>
>
## Checklist:
#### Dev activity
- [ ] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [ ] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [ ] My changes generate no new warnings
- [ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [ ] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag
#### QA activity:
- [ ] [Speedbreak
features](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#speedbreakers-)
have been covered
- [ ] Test plan covers all impacted features and [areas of
interest](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#areas-of-interest-)
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by project stakeholders and other
QA members
- [ ] Manually tested functionality on DP
- [ ] We had an implementation alignment call with stakeholders post QA
Round 2
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by SDET/manual QA
- [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after Cypress tests were reviewed
- [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after JUnit tests were reviewed
## Description
Create a Basewidget wrapper that supplies Widget Onion as per the layout
system.
involves extracting widget layers presently in the BaseWidget into HOCs
and hooks and make sure layout systems can be scaled.
Make sure Modal widget is handled as a overlay widget whose wrappers are
supplied by basewidget instead of modal widget implementing its own
editing blocks.
This PR also separates the drag n drop logic for both auto layout and
fixed layout. They are moved into respective Layout system folders to
have clear sepsration of concern
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes#26674Fixes#26675Fixes#26676Fixes#26570Fixes#26590Fixes#26591Fixes#26592
<img width="931" alt="BaseWidgetHOC"
src="https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/assets/35134347/22f4cf1e-e4c5-4475-83a8-6818e7cebe70">
[Miro Link to view the new
system](https://miro.com/app/board/uXjVM6vRgf8=/?moveToWidget=3458764560239189204&cot=14)
> 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.
- 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)
>
>
>
## Testing
>
#### How Has This Been Tested?
> Please describe the tests that you ran to verify your changes. Also
list any relevant details for your test configuration.
> Delete anything that is not relevant
- [x] Manual
- [ ] JUnit
- [ ] Jest
- [ ] Cypress
>
>
#### Test Plan
> Add Testsmith test cases links that relate to this PR
>
>
#### Issues raised during DP testing
> Link issues raised during DP testing for better visiblity and tracking
(copy link from comments dropped on this PR)
>
>
>
## Checklist:
#### Dev activity
- [ ] 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: rahulramesha <rahul@appsmith.com>
Co-authored-by: rahulramesha <71900764+rahulramesha@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Preet Sidhu <preetsidhu.bits@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Aswath K <aswath.sana@gmail.com>
## Description
UX improvements for Git Connect Flow
https://zpl.io/W4AQoek
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes#25588
#### 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)
- This change requires a documentation update
>
>
>
## Testing
>
#### How Has This Been Tested?
> Please describe the tests that you ran to verify your changes. Also
list any relevant details for your test configuration.
> Delete anything that is not relevant
- [ ] Manual
- [ ] JUnit
- [ ] Jest
- [ ] Cypress
>
>
#### Test Plan
> Add Testsmith test cases links that relate to this PR
>
>
#### Issues raised during DP testing
https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/26725#issuecomment-1709723205https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/26725#issuecomment-1711136694
>
>
>
## 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
- Remove the config objects from widget and config maps from the widget
factory.
- Introduce methods in widget development API to dynamically fetch this
items.
- freeze the widget configuration.
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/26008
> if no issue exists, please create an issue and ask the maintainers
about this first
>
>
#### Media
> A video or a GIF is preferred. when using Loom, don’t embed because it
looks like it’s a GIF. instead, just link to the video
>
>
#### Type of change
> Please delete options that are not relevant.
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
- New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
- Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing
functionality to not work as expected)
- Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception)
- This change requires a documentation update
>
>
>
## Testing
>
#### How Has This Been Tested?
> Please describe the tests that you ran to verify your changes. Also
list any relevant details for your test configuration.
> Delete anything that is not relevant
- [x] Manual
- [ ] Jest
- [ ] Cypress
>
>
#### Test Plan
> Add Testsmith test cases links that relate to this PR
>
>
#### Issues raised during DP testing
> Link issues raised during DP testing for better visiblity and tracking
(copy link from comments dropped on this PR)
>
>
>
## Checklist:
#### Dev activity
- [ ] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [ ] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [ ] My changes generate no new warnings
- [ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [ ] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag
#### QA activity:
- [ ] [Speedbreak
features](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#speedbreakers-)
have been covered
- [x] Test plan covers all impacted features and [areas of
interest](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#areas-of-interest-)
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by project stakeholders and other
QA members
- [x] Manually tested functionality on DP
- [ ] We had an implementation alignment call with stakeholders post QA
Round 2
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by SDET/manual QA
- [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after Cypress tests were reviewed
- [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after JUnit tests were reviewed
## Description
Segregating api calls for status and remote
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes#26038
#### 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
- [ ] 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
## Description
- Optimisation around evaluation updates to the state
- Updates generation logic moved from main thread to worker thread
- The diff between previous state and next state is less exacting to
limit the number of updates
- Logic to compress similar updates to reduce the diff updates sent from
worker thread to main thread
- Memoisation fixes and some selector optimisation for improved
performance.
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes#24866
#### 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] Jest
- [ ] Cypress
>
>
#### Test Plan
> Add Testsmith test cases links that relate to this PR
>
>
#### Issues raised during DP testing
> Link issues raised during DP testing for better visiblity and tracking
(copy link from comments dropped on this PR)
>
>
>
## Checklist:
#### Dev activity
- [x] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] My changes generate no new warnings
- [ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [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
Retains last selected tab on debugger and user selected filter condition
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes#23108
#### Type of change
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
>
>
## Testing
>
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [x] Manual
- [x] Cypress
>
>
#### Test Plan
> Add Testsmith test cases links that relate to this PR
>
>
#### Issues raised during DP testing
> Link issues raised during DP testing for better visiblity and tracking
(copy link from comments dropped on this PR)
>
>
>
## Checklist:
#### Dev activity
- [x] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] My changes generate no new warnings
- [x] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [x] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag
#### QA activity:
- [ ] [Speedbreak
features](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#speedbreakers-)
have been covered
- [x] Test plan covers all impacted features and [areas of
interest](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#areas-of-interest-)
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by project stakeholders and other
QA members
- [x] Manually tested functionality on DP
- [x] We had an implementation alignment call with stakeholders post QA
Round 2
- [x] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by SDET/manual QA
- [x] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after Cypress tests were reviewed
- [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after JUnit tests were reviewed
---------
Co-authored-by: Rishabh Rathod <rishabh.rathod@appsmith.com>
Co-authored-by: arunvjn <arun@appsmith.com>
## 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
Start downloading app data earlier to improve load times.
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes#24618
#### Type of change
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
## Testing
>
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [ ] Cypress
#### Test Plan
- [x] Loading apps in view/edit mode from home page and having them work
perfectly
- [x] Opening apps in view/edit mode directly via links and having them
work perfectly
- [x] Having apps with on page load actions
- [x] Test with complex widgets and see if they work properly
>
>
#### Issues raised during DP testing
https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/24365#issuecomment-1624013687
>
>
>
## 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: akash-codemonk <67054171+akash-codemonk@users.noreply.github.com>
## Description
This PR introduces a new architecture, making evaluation and linting
independent.
<img width="500" alt="Screenshot 2023-07-04 at 17 24 40"
src="https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/assets/46670083/00b1eab9-cd79-4442-b51a-5345c2d6c4da">
In the previous architecture, one dependency graph was used to hold the
relationship between entities in the application and subsequently, the
"evaluation order" and "paths to lint" were generated.
Although similar, the dependency graph required for evaluation and
linting differ. For example, trigger fields should not depend on any
other entity/entity path in the eval's dependency graph since they are
not reactive. This is not the case for the linting dependency graph.
## Performance
- This PR introduces "lint only" actions. These actions trigger linting,
but not evaluation. For example, UPDATE_JS_ACTION_BODY_INIT (which is
fired immediately after a user edits the body of a JS Object). Since
linting fires without waiting for a successful update on the server,
**response time decreases by 40%** (from 2s to 1.2s).
- Reduction in time taken to generate paths requiring linting.
<img width="715" alt="Screenshot 2023-07-04 at 18 10 52"
src="https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/assets/46670083/d73a4bfc-de73-4fa7-bdca-af1e5d8ce8a1">
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes#23447Fixes#23166Fixes#24194Fixes#23720Fixes#23868Fixes#21895
Latest DP: https://appsmith-r3f9e325p-get-appsmith.vercel.app/
#### Type of change
- Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception)
## Testing
>
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [x] Manual
- [ ] Jest
- [ ] Cypress
>
>
#### Test Plan
https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/23865#issuecomment-1606738633
>
>
#### Issues raised during DP testing
https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/23865#issuecomment-1608779227
response:
https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/23865#issuecomment-1619677033
>
>
>
## 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)
- [x] 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
---------
Co-authored-by: arunvjn <arun@appsmith.com>
Co-authored-by: Ivan Akulov <mail@iamakulov.com>
## Description
Today if we have more than one collaborator on a page, merging is an
absolute nightmare. All of the widget config for a page is represented
in one single giant JSON blob in canvas.json this makes it very hard to
make isolated changes.
This PR is breaking down the git representation into smaller JSON files
that are aggregated by the running app.
Fixes https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/17033
#### Type of change
- New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
## Testing
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [ ] Manual
- [ ] Jest
- [ ] Cypress
- [ ] JUnit
#### 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: brayn003 <rudra@appsmith.com>
Co-authored-by: Parthvi <80334441+Parthvi12@users.noreply.github.com>
## Description
We are removing the documentation and snippets that used to be shown in
the omnibar. These features are not being maintained and usage is pretty
low.
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes#24278Fixes#24279Fixes#24280
#### Type of change
- Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing
functionality to not work as expected)
## Testing
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [x] Manual
- [x] Cypress
#### Test Plan
https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/24787#issuecomment-1611180354
#### Issues raised during DP testing
https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/24787#issuecomment-1611475323
## Checklist:
#### Dev activity
- [ ] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [ ] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [ ] My changes generate no new warnings
- [ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [ ] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag
#### QA activity:
- [x] [Speedbreak
features](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#speedbreakers-)
have been covered
- [x] Test plan covers all impacted features and [areas of
interest](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#areas-of-interest-)
- [x] Test plan has been peer reviewed by project stakeholders and other
QA members
- [x] Manually tested functionality on DP
- [x] We had an implementation alignment call with stakeholders post QA
Round 2
- [x] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by SDET/manual QA
- [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after Cypress tests were reviewed
- [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after JUnit tests were reviewed
## Description
* Currently we do not reset the template filters when we close template
modal and open it again in `add page from template flow`
This becomes confusing for some users.
* Also increases test coverage of templates filtering
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes#17276
#### Media
https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/assets/6761673/3c94e21b-e8a9-4c6b-bc81-e677269bb5ea
#### Type of change
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
## Testing
>
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [x] Cypress
#### Test Plan
> Add Testsmith test cases links that relate to this PR
>
>
#### Issues raised during DP testing
> Link issues raised during DP testing for better visiblity and tracking
(copy link from comments dropped on this PR)
>
>
>
## Checklist:
#### Dev activity
- [ ] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [ ] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [ ] My changes generate no new warnings
- [ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [ ] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag
#### QA activity:
- [ ] [Speedbreak
features](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Test-plan-implementation#speedbreaker-features-to-consider-for-every-change)
have been covered
- [ ] Test plan covers all impacted features and [areas of
interest](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans/_edit#areas-of-interest)
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by project stakeholders and other
QA members
- [ ] Manually tested functionality on DP
- [ ] We had an implementation alignment call with stakeholders post QA
Round 2
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by SDET/manual QA
- [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after Cypress tests were reviewed
- [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after JUnit tests were reviewed
## 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
Splitting DSL into different files when saving into git
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes#23763
#### Media
#### Type of change
- New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
## Testing
Manual 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/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: Hetu Nandu <hetunandu@gmail.com>
## Description
Add analytics for JSObject variable creation and mutation event.
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes#24038
#### Type of change
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
## Testing
#### How Has This Been Tested?
#### 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
> Pull Request Template
>
> Use this template to quickly create a well written pull request.
Delete all quotes before creating the pull request.
>
## Description
> Add a TL;DR when description is extra long (helps content team)
>
> Please include a summary of the changes and which issue has been
fixed. Please also include relevant motivation
> and context. List any dependencies that are required for this change
>
> Links to Notion, Figma or any other documents that might be relevant
to the PR
>
>
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes # (issue number)
> if no issue exists, please create an issue and ask the maintainers
about this first
>
>
#### Media
> A video or a GIF is preferred. when using Loom, don’t embed because it
looks like it’s a GIF. instead, just link to the video
>
>
#### Type of change
> Please delete options that are not relevant.
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
- New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
- Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing
functionality to not work as expected)
- Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception)
- This change requires a documentation update
>
>
>
## Testing
>
#### How Has This Been Tested?
> Please describe the tests that you ran to verify your changes. Also
list any relevant details for your test configuration.
> Delete anything that is not relevant
- [x] Manual
- [x] Jest
- [x] Cypress
>
>
#### Test Plan
> One Click Binding -
https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/issues/2390
>
#### Issues raised during DP testing
> Link issues raised during DP testing for better visiblity and tracking
(copy link from comments dropped on this PR)
>
>
>
## Checklist:
#### Dev activity
- [x] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] My changes generate no new warnings
- [x] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [x] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag
#### QA activity:
- [ ] [Speedbreak
features](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Test-plan-implementation#speedbreaker-features-to-consider-for-every-change)
have been covered
- [ ] Test plan covers all impacted features and [areas of
interest](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans/_edit#areas-of-interest)
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by project stakeholders and other
QA members
- [ ] Manually tested functionality on DP
- [ ] We had an implementation alignment call with stakeholders post QA
Round 2
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by SDET/manual QA
- [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after Cypress tests were reviewed
- [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after JUnit tests were reviewed
---------
Co-authored-by: Vemparala Surya Vamsi <vamsi@appsmith.com>
## Description
Adds a loading state, when a branch is clicked from the Branch List in
the bottom left corner
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes#23935
#### Media
Original behaviour
[https://www.loom.com/share/9f08081d912c411ba994f6ced111a36e](https://www.loom.com/share/9f08081d912c411ba994f6ced111a36e)
Fixed behaviour
[https://www.loom.com/share/41e677e293bc42fb99c16af70a2a99e4](https://www.loom.com/share/41e677e293bc42fb99c16af70a2a99e4)
#### Type of change
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
## Testing
Manual Testing
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [x] Manual
#### Test Plan
#### Issues raised during DP testing
> Link issues raised during DP testing for better visiblity and tracking
(copy link from comments dropped on this PR)
>
>
>
## Checklist:
#### Dev activity
- [x] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] My changes generate no new warnings
- [ ] 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
Fixes bug of gsheets not going into edit mode
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes#23775
#### Media
#### 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/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: Aman Agarwal <aman@appsmith.com>
## Description
The evaluated values for text fields in action selector were not shown.
This PR fixes the issue.
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes#12736
#### Type of change
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
## Testing
>
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [x] Cypress
>
>
#### Test Plan
> Add Testsmith test cases links that relate to this PR
>
>
#### Issues raised during DP testing
> Link issues raised during DP testing for better visiblity and tracking
(copy link from comments dropped on this PR)
>
>
>
## Checklist:
#### Dev activity
- [x] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] My changes generate no new warnings
- [x] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [ ] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag
#### QA activity:
- [ ] [Speedbreak
features](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Test-plan-implementation#speedbreaker-features-to-consider-for-every-change)
have been covered
- [x] Test plan covers all impacted features and [areas of
interest](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans/_edit#areas-of-interest)
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by project stakeholders and other
QA members
- [x] Manually tested functionality on DP
- [ ] We had an implementation alignment call with stakeholders post QA
Round 2
- [x] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by SDET/manual QA
- [x] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after Cypress tests were reviewed
- [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after JUnit tests were reviewed
## Description
Expand auto layout implementation to handle auto height use cases.
Use cases handled in this PR:
1. Change canvas and container-like widget height on adding / removing
widgets.
2. Container height update on content change of individual props, e.g.
text, checkbox groups.
3. Tabs widget use cases - change height on tab change, shouldShowProps
update.
4. Correct modal widget height.
5. List widget updates - disable auto height, enable manual resizing of
item container.
6. Fix resize loop.
Fixes https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/21977
Fixes https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/22093
Fixes https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/21837
Fixes https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/22183
Fixes https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/21758
Fixes https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/21870
Fixes https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/22086
Fixes https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/22539
Fixes https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/22329Fixes#22588
## 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)
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Manual
- Jest
- Cypress
## Checklist:
### Dev activity
- [x] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [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
---------
Co-authored-by: Aswath K <aswath@appsmith.com>
Co-authored-by: rahulramesha <rahul@appsmith.com>
Co-authored-by: Aswath K <aswath.sana@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Ashok Kumar M <35134347+marks0351@users.noreply.github.com>
## Description
In order to improve new user experience, we want to update the order of
items listed in the new action list. This will show app datasources
higher in the order and generic creation action lower in the order.
Create JS objects is still listed on the top.
This also will update the list sorting on the omni bar.
<img width="524" alt="Screenshot 2023-04-26 at 3 49 31 PM"
src="https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/12022471/234547215-c15c8f12-7be1-4462-8b78-190e7dc75dea.png">
<img width="513" alt="Screenshot 2023-04-26 at 3 53 39 PM"
src="https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/12022471/234547574-46308912-28de-49f7-a3bf-f872def42adb.png">
> Improve the order of action create list
Fixes#22618
## Type of change
- New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
## How Has This Been Tested?
Extracted the function and adding some jest cases for the functionality
- Manual
- Jest
- Cypress
### Test Plan
TBA
### Issues raised during DP testing
https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/22754#issuecomment-1527503666
## 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
- [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
- [x] Added Test Plan Approved label after reveiwing all Cypress test
## Description
We noticed stale data from the previous page when having widgets with
the same name on different pages. This PR fixes this by changing the
data tree in the state when clearing the cache.
Fixes#17097
PS - This task does not have tests, since we could not come up with an
approach to test this scenario
## Media
https://www.loom.com/share/14b88d57237d4a1097aa82185e9606cd
## Type of change
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Manual
### Test Plan
tested with table, list and chart widgets
### Issues raised during DP testing
none
## Checklist:
### Dev activity
- [x] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my code
- [ ] I have commented on my code, particularly in hard-to-understand
areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] My changes generate no new warnings
- [ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [x] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag
### QA activity:
- [ ] Test plan has been approved by relevant developers
- [ ] Test plan has been peer-reviewed by QA
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by either SDET or
manual QA
- [ ] Organized project review call with relevant stakeholders after
Round 1/2 of QA
- [ ] Added Test Plan Approved label after reviewing all Cypress test
## Description
In this PR `ActionReducer` code was refactored to use
`createImmerReducer` instead of `createReducer`, which helped in solving
the gsheet error of spreadsheet name mismatch and api url field update failing autosave by updating the redux
store values properly.
Context: 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 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, basis which support can determine
the right level of support.
Fixes#22385
Media
https://www.loom.com/share/ab63bb4d738445e8a8a484b66d8c1fa6
## Type of change
- New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
## How Has This Been Tested?
> Please describe the tests that you ran to verify your changes. Provide
instructions, so we can reproduce.
> Please also list any relevant details for your test configuration.
> Delete anything that is not important
- Manual
### 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
- [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
Removing feature flag for app-level invites. Also, updating import
statements to use `@appsmith/..` instead of `ce/..`
Fixes [#22657](https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/22657)
## Type of change
- Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception)
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Manual
- Jest
- Cypress
## Checklist:
### Dev activity
- [x] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] My changes generate no new warnings
- [ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [x] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag
### QA activity:
- [ ] Test plan has been approved by relevant developers
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by QA
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by either SDET or
manual QA
- [ ] Organized project review call with relevant stakeholders after
Round 1/2 of QA
- [ ] Added Test Plan Approved label after reveiwing all Cypress test
## Description
This PR adds a property pane control through which we can browse the
datsource, tables and columns. This will be used later in the one click
feature.
Fixes#21504
## Type of change
- Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception
### 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
## Description
>
```
const isOnCanvas = matchBuilderPath(window.location.pathname);
if (isOnCanvas) {
dispatch(showDebuggerAction(!showDebugger));
}}
```
The condition check to verify if we are on canvas was removed as we are
opening debugger throughout all pages.
> Now debugger is accessible from all pages in Appsmith. (Earlier it was
not present in Datasources pages.)
Fixes#19567#21935#21934#21907#21223
Media
> [Video](https://www.loom.com/share/ff5eebb5e0a74e0bad6ead26050b5833)
## 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)
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Manual
- Jest
- Cypress
### Test Plan
> Add Testsmith test cases links that relate to this PR
### Issues raised during DP testing
> Link issues raised during DP testing for better visiblity and tracking
(copy link from comments dropped on this PR)
## Checklist:
### Dev activity
- [x] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [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
Implemented in #21317. A problem arose where if a widget that exists
inside a tabs widget is setting the default value of the tab in order to
navigate change the tab, it would fail to switch it because the selected
widget logic takes over.
> Improve selected widget visibility by skipping feature when selection
happens via a canvas click
Fixes#22070
Media
https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/12022471/229714138-55f89cda-3c27-4953-91c0-46f5a9834adf.mov
## Type of change
> Please delete options that are not relevant.
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Manual
- 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
- On air-gapped instances we can't fetch appsmith assets from S3, that
will result in broken which is not desirable.
- So this adds a script and util function which searches the client and
server codebase for the assets url and downloads the image and puts it
in the `public` folder so that the browser can access those even in an
airgapped instance since the assets are being served locally.
> Way to serve assets locally.
Fixes#22004
> if no issue exists, please create an issue and ask the maintainers
about this first
Media
https://vdqm24wed6.vmaker.com/record/IquS90WbWgS1I0bz - blocked certain
api routes from getting called on airgap
## Description
This PR improves the error resolution journey for users. Lint warnings
are added to async JS functions which are bound to data fields (sync
fields).
- JSObjects are "linted" by individual properties (as opposed to being
"linted" as a whole)
- Only edited jsobject properties get "linted", improving jsObject
linting by ~35%.(This largely depends on the size of the JSObject)
<img width="500" alt="Screenshot 2023-04-03 at 11 17 45"
src="https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/46670083/229482424-233f3950-ffec-46f5-8c42-680dff6a412f.png">
<img width="500" alt="Screenshot 2023-03-14 at 11 26 00"
src="https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/46670083/224975572-b2d8d404-aac6-43fb-be14-20edf7c56117.png">
<img width="500" alt="Screenshot 2023-03-14 at 11 41 11"
src="https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/46670083/224975952-c40848b1-69d8-489d-9b62-24127ea1a2f1.png">
Fixes#20289Fixes#20008
## Type of change
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
## How Has This Been Tested?
- CYPRESS
- JEST
### Test Plan
> Add Testsmith test cases links that relate to this PR
### Issues raised during DP testing
> Link issues raised during DP testing for better visiblity and tracking
(copy link from comments dropped on this PR)
## Checklist:
### Dev activity
- [ ] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [ ] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [ ] My changes generate no new warnings
- [ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [ ] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag
### QA activity:
- [ ] Test plan has been approved by relevant developers
- [x] Test plan has been peer reviewed by QA
- [x] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by either SDET or
manual QA
- [ ] 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 explorer remains collapsed even after creating an entity. This hides
it from the user behind the collapsible. This change will ensure that
the correct section opens up if it is closed so that the newly created
entity is shown.
> Opens collapsed section in the entity explorer when an entity is
created
Fixes#11937
Media
https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/12022471/228124374-495ebb20-267a-4f4f-971a-31f536e6f6d4.mov
## Type of change
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
## How Has This Been Tested?
> Please describe the tests that you ran to verify your changes. Provide
instructions, so we can reproduce.
> Please also list any relevant details for your test configuration.
> Delete anything that is not important
- Manual
- Jest
- Cypress
### Test Plan
> Add Testsmith test cases links that relate to this PR
### Issues raised during DP testing
> Link issues raised during DP testing for better visiblity and tracking
(copy link from comments dropped on this PR)
## Checklist:
### Dev activity
- [ ] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [ ] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [ ] My changes generate no new warnings
- [ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [ ] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag
### QA activity:
- [ ] Test plan has been approved by relevant developers
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by QA
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by either SDET or
manual QA
- [ ] Organized project review call with relevant stakeholders after
Round 1/2 of QA
- [ ] Added Test Plan Approved label after reveiwing all Cypress test
## Description
> Updating the page permissions only if the data is being sent to the
reducer to avoid making page permissions blank and leading to GAC-based
error for auto-saving of pages.
Fixes [#20677](https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/20677)
## Type of change
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
## How Has This Been Tested?
> Followed the steps mentioned in the issue before and after this fix.
Before the fix, the issue was reproducible. After the fix, the issue is
resolved and we don't see the error anymore.
- Manual
## Checklist:
### Dev activity
- [x] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] My changes generate no new warnings
- [ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [x] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag
### QA activity:
- [ ] Test plan has been approved by relevant developers
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by QA
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by either SDET or
manual QA
- [ ] Organized project review call with relevant stakeholders after
Round 1/2 of QA
- [ ] Added Test Plan Approved label after reveiwing all Cypress test
## Description
Several changes made to enhance the table performance:
- Batch updates of meta properties to limit the number of rerenders
- Removed expensive comparator operations.
- Memoised components which are not susceptible to updates.
- Table filter code optimisation to limit the number of times setState
is triggered.
Fixes#20910
## Description
> Code splitting FE files to support app level invites on Business
edition.
Fixes [#21018](https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/21018)
[#21015](https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/21015)
## Type of change
- Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception)
## How Has This Been Tested?
> Nothing is affected on CE by this change.
- Manual
## Checklist:
### Dev activity
- [x] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] My changes generate no new warnings
- [ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [x] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag
### QA activity:
- [ ] Test plan has been approved by relevant developers
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by QA
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by either SDET or
manual QA
- [ ] Organized project review call with relevant stakeholders after
Round 1/2 of QA
- [ ] Added Test Plan Approved label after reveiwing all Cypress test
## TL;DR
A new revamped experience for navigation for Appsmith users.
## Description
Introduces new navigation styles with better default navigation - Top
(Stacked), a variant for Top (Inline), and a collapsible Sidebar.
Configure your app's navigation by navigating to the navigation settings
tab inside the app settings pane and observe how your app with the
selected navigation settings will look side by side as you change them.
This PR pushes the v1 for EPIC #17766.
Fixes#19157Fixes#19158Fixes#19174Fixes#19173Fixes#19160Fixes#20712Fixes#19161Fixes#20554Fixes#20938Fixes#21129
## Media
<video
src="https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/22471214/227187245-84e4e3fa-18e4-4690-8237-cfce29f432e5.mp4"></video>
## Type of change
- New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
- This change requires a documentation update
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Manual
- Cypress
### Test Plan
https://www.notion.so/appsmith/Test-Plan-a7883ae4980d470690de5c62a41dd168
### Issues raised during DP testing
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Kocq8h1H3EXlbqDgiNruzBr9MeNPyY26zct8IWYEY40/edit#gid=0
## 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: Pawan Kumar <pawan@appsmith.com>
## Description
`defaultSelectedItem` property was added to the List widget. This
enables the User to Select any item when the list widget loads. This
selection makes use of the Data identifier property and it currently for
ClientSide pagination.
Fixes#13214
## Type of change
- New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Cypress
- Manual
### Test Plan
> https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/issues/2215
### Issues raised during DP testing
> Link issues raised during DP testing for better visiblity and tracking
(copy link from comments dropped on this PR)
## Checklist:
### Dev activity
- [x] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [x] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] My changes generate no new warnings
- [x] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [x] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag
### QA activity:
- [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
- [x] Added Test Plan Approved label after reveiwing all Cypress test
## 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”>
## Description
This is the second phase of the split data tree. In the previous version, we collected all config paths in each entity and put them in the `__config__` property. All those config properties do get inserted into final data tree which we don't need at all.
As part of this change, we will be creating another tree i.e **'configTree'** which will contain all config of each entity.
unEvalTree is split into 2 trees =>
1. unEvalTree
2. configTree
Example:
previous unEvalTree Api1 content
<img width="1766" alt="image" src="https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/7846888/215990868-0b095421-e7b8-44bc-89aa-065b35e237d6.png">
After this change
unEvalTree Api1 content
<img width="1758" alt="image" src="https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/7846888/215991045-506fb10a-645a-4aad-8e77-0f3786a86977.png">
Note- above example doesn't have '__config__' property
configTree Api1 content
<img width="1760" alt="image" src="https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/7846888/215991169-a2e03443-5d6a-4ff1-97c5-a12593e46395.png">
## Type of change
- Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception)
- #11351
## 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
Co-authored-by: Aishwarya UR <aishwarya@appsmith.com>
## Description
This PR upgrades Prettier to v2 + enforces TypeScript’s [`import
type`](https://www.typescriptlang.org/docs/handbook/release-notes/typescript-3-8.html#type-only-imports-and-export)
syntax where applicable. It’s submitted as a separate PR so we can merge
it easily.
As a part of this PR, we reformat the codebase heavily:
- add `import type` everywhere where it’s required, and
- re-format the code to account for Prettier 2’s breaking changes:
https://prettier.io/blog/2020/03/21/2.0.0.html#breaking-changes
This PR is submitted against `release` to make sure all new code by team
members will adhere to new formatting standards, and we’ll have fewer
conflicts when merging `bundle-optimizations` into `release`. (I’ll
merge `release` back into `bundle-optimizations` once this PR is
merged.)
### Why is this needed?
This PR is needed because, for the Lodash optimization from
7cbb12af88,
we need to use `import type`. Otherwise, `babel-plugin-lodash` complains
that `LoDashStatic` is not a lodash function.
However, just using `import type` in the current codebase will give you
this:
<img width="962" alt="Screenshot 2023-03-08 at 17 45 59"
src="https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/2953267/223775744-407afa0c-e8b9-44a1-90f9-b879348da57f.png">
That’s because Prettier 1 can’t parse `import type` at all. To parse it,
we need to upgrade to Prettier 2.
### Why enforce `import type`?
Apart from just enabling `import type` support, this PR enforces
specifying `import type` everywhere it’s needed. (Developers will get
immediate TypeScript and ESLint errors when they forget to do so.)
I’m doing this because I believe `import type` improves DX and makes
refactorings easier.
Let’s say you had a few imports like below. Can you tell which of these
imports will increase the bundle size? (Tip: it’s not all of them!)
```ts
// app/client/src/workers/Linting/utils.ts
import { Position } from "codemirror";
import { LintError as JSHintError, LintOptions } from "jshint";
import { get, isEmpty, isNumber, keys, last, set } from "lodash";
```
It’s pretty hard, right?
What about now?
```ts
// app/client/src/workers/Linting/utils.ts
import type { Position } from "codemirror";
import type { LintError as JSHintError, LintOptions } from "jshint";
import { get, isEmpty, isNumber, keys, last, set } from "lodash";
```
Now, it’s clear that only `lodash` will be bundled.
This helps developers to see which imports are problematic, but it
_also_ helps with refactorings. Now, if you want to see where
`codemirror` is bundled, you can just grep for `import \{.*\} from
"codemirror"` – and you won’t get any type-only imports.
This also helps (some) bundlers. Upon transpiling, TypeScript erases
type-only imports completely. In some environment (not ours), this makes
the bundle smaller, as the bundler doesn’t need to bundle type-only
imports anymore.
## Type of change
- Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception)
## How Has This Been Tested?
This was tested to not break the build.
### Test Plan
> Add Testsmith test cases links that relate to this PR
### Issues raised during DP testing
> Link issues raised during DP testing for better visiblity and tracking
(copy link from comments dropped on this PR)
## Checklist:
### Dev activity
- [x] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [ ] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [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: Satish Gandham <hello@satishgandham.com>
Co-authored-by: Satish Gandham <satish.iitg@gmail.com>
## Description
This PR includes following changes:
- In case of limiting google sheet access project, when user selects specific sheets as an option, they should be shown file picker UI once the authorisation is complete, In this file picker UI, users can select the google sheet files that they want to use with appsmith application and allow access to only those files.
- This PR contains the changes for file picker UI and updating datasource auth state based on the files selected by user.
TL;DR
Steps to test this PR:
- Create Google Sheet datasource
- In the datasource config form, select specific sheets as an option from the scope dropdown.
- Click on save and authorise
- This will take you to google oauth process
<img width="467" alt="Screenshot 2023-02-20 at 1 24 24 PM" src="https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/30018882/220045493-57b0ca6c-3f08-4963-af55-d603cf79bc43.png">
- Select the google account
- This will take you to google oauth2 consent screen
<img width="451" alt="Screenshot 2023-02-20 at 1 24 55 PM" src="https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/30018882/220045641-9f70dd29-6664-489a-b77b-df65445491df.png">
- Click on allow for all requested permissions
- This will take you back to appsmith's datasource config page in view mode and load the file picker UI
<img width="425" alt="Screenshot 2023-02-20 at 1 25 47 PM" src="https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/30018882/220045828-8b3e3e46-4ddc-4e30-b2f8-f12865395817.png">
- Select the files that you want to share with appsmith app
- Click on select
- You should see the new query button in enabled state, as datasource authorisation is complete
<img width="800" alt="Screenshot 2023-02-20 at 1 27 28 PM" src="https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/30018882/220046131-6ce99a85-cddc-4529-ae45-f9833aefd71b.png">
- In case you select cancel on google oauth2 consent screen, you should error message on datasource config page with new query button being disabled
<img width="810" alt="Screenshot 2023-02-20 at 1 28 49 PM" src="https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/30018882/220046385-6b8d636c-b517-44c3-a596-b52bc0084b94.png">
- In case you do give all the permissions but do not select any files in google file picker, then also you should see error message on datasource config page with new query button disabled.
Fixes#20163, #20290, #20160, #20162
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.
- 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
- [ ] 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”>
## Description
Core features of Auto Layout and mobile responsiveness, hidden under a feature flag.
> Add a TL;DR when description is extra long (helps content team)
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.
- New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
## How Has This Been Tested?
> Manual regression and sanity tests for all fixed canvas functionality.
- Manual
- Jest
- Cypress
## Checklist:
### Dev activity
- [x] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] My changes generate no new warnings
- [ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [x] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [x] PR is being merged under a feature flag
---------
Co-authored-by: Ashok Kumar M <35134347+marks0351@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Arsalan <arsalanyaldram0211@outlook.com>
Co-authored-by: Aswath K <aswath.sana@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Aishwarya UR <aishwarya@appsmith.com>
## Description
Widget selection is driven by URL changes. This would fix browser
navigation for users as they can use browser back/forward buttons to
travel across older contexts on Appsmith.
> Fixing browser URL navigation for widgets
Fixes#19571
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.
- New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Manual
- Jest
- Cypress
### Test Plan
> Add Testsmith [test
cases](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/issues/2171) links that
relate to this PR
### Issues raised during DP testing
- [X] When a selected widget is below viewport and user refreshes the
page, then the widget property pane is open but the page does not
navigate to the selected widget
https://loom.com/share/09f1eda2f02d474981a0d48e4a6419ec
- [ ] Drop 2 widgets one at a time > Delete both the widgets > Now click
on back button of the browser > Observe the url it shows the widget id
in the URL but the canvas remains empty
https://loom.com/share/53cae28a5d224e67b783c8ccf53745f5
Dev Response: This issue is valid but not a major inconvenience. We will
try to track it and see if it needed to be addressed. Many other web
tools do not handle such cases
- [X] Canvas scrolls down when all widgets are selected.
https://loom.com/share/c8a68dadcdb040779abd3a73bde2b06c
- [X] Widget is not getting highlighted when added from the API editor
page. Please refer to the attached
video:-https://jiju8jbmwa.vmaker.com/record/IkwiAqFgafK9dVmu
## Checklist:
### Dev activity
- [ ] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [ ] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [ ] My changes generate no new warnings
- [ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [ ] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag
### QA activity:
- [ ] Test plan has been approved by relevant developers
- [x] Test plan has been peer reviewed by QA
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by either SDET or
manual QA
- [ ] Organized project review call with relevant stakeholders after
Round 1/2 of QA
- [ ] Added Test Plan Approved label after reveiwing all Cypress test
---------
Co-authored-by: Aishwarya UR <aishwarya@appsmith.com>
## 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
TL;DR
This is a complete architectural change of of List widget works to
support all widgets we currently have and should automatically support
any future widgets.
It also introduces nested List widgets i.e a list widget can have a
another list widget which in turn can have another list widget.
Fixes#18206Fixes#6775Fixes#13211Fixes#16582Fixes#11739Fixes#15094Fixes#6840Fixes#10841Fixes#17386Fixes#18340Fixes#16898Fixes#17555Fixes#6858Fixes#9568Fixes#17480Fixes#18523Fixes#18206Fixes#16586Fixes#18106Fixes#16576Fixes#14697Fixes#9607Fixes#19648Fixes#19739Fixes#19652Fixes#18730Fixes#19503Fixes#19498Fixes#19437Fixes#5245Fixes#19150Fixes#18638Fixes#11332Fixes#17901Fixes#19043Fixes#17777Fixes#8237Fixes#15487Fixes#15988Fixes#18621Fixes#16788Fixes#18110Fixes#18382Fixes#17427Fixes#18105Fixes#18287Fixes#19808Fixes#14655
## Type of change
- New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Cypress
- Jest
- Manual
## Checklist:
- [x] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] My changes generate no new warnings
- [x] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [x] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
---------
Co-authored-by: Tolulope Adetula <31691737+Tooluloope@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Favour Ohanekwu <fohanekwu@gmail.com>
## Description
This PR adds another feature update we had planned for Auto Height
- [ ] For new applications, in View and Preview mode, any widget which
is invisible will let go of its space and collapse if it's either on the
main Canvas or a container-like widget which has Auto-height enabled.
- [ ] Widgets within a container-like Widget, say Tabs, that doesn't
have Auto-height enabled, will now let go of their space if they're
invisible.
- [ ] The experience in Edit mode has not changed.
TL;DR: In new applications, in the Preview and Published _AKA_ View
modes, if a widget is invisible and within an Auto-height-enabled
container like a Tab, a Modal, a Form, or the main Canvas, it will fully
collapse, allowing widgets below it to move up and take its space. This
changes the behavior today prior to the release of this PR for
Auto-height-enabled widgets.
Fixes#19983Fixes#18681
Part of #11855.
Instead of getting the Google Maps API Key from runtime env variables,
we get it from the server, as part of the response of
`/api/v1/tenant/current`. This doesn't add a database call, just include
the env variable name in the response, so shouldn't have any performance
impact on the API.
On the client though, the Maps API key won't be available, until at
least the first call to `/tenant/current` is finished.
Also, first big PR in client code. 🙂
Edit: not `/me` anymore, but from `/tenant/current`.
---------
Co-authored-by: Pawan Kumar <pawan.stardust@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Aishwarya UR <aishwarya@appsmith.com>
## Description
This PR adds one of the promised updates to the auto height feature.
More specifically, we wanted to add was the ability to see the
containers change height as we drag and drop widgets within them instead
of after dropping (when auto height is enabled)
This PR does that.
Co-authored-by: Aishwarya UR <aishwarya@appsmith.com>
## Description
Fixes#19982
## Type of change
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
## How Has This Been Tested?
WIP
### 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
- [x] Test plan has been peer reviewed by QA
- [x] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by either SDET or
manual QA
- [ ] Organized project review call with relevant stakeholders after
Round 1/2 of QA
- [x] Added Test Plan Approved label after reveiwing all Cypress test
---------
Co-authored-by: Aishwarya UR <aishwarya@appsmith.com>
## Description
This change is a refactor of widget selection logic. It consolidates all
the business logic to make it easy to maintain. It also improves the
performance a bit.
It touched a lot of features as we heavily rely on this
```
Select one
Select multiple with drag
Select multiple with shift
Select multiple with cmd/ctrl
Selections should be on the same level of hierarchy
Unselect all by clicking on the canvas
Unselect all by pressing esc
Select all with cmd + a
Paste in main container
Paste in another container
Undo
Redo
Modal Selection
Modal child selection
Context switching
cmd click
snipping mode
new widget suggestion
onboarding
```
> Refactor widget selection logic
Fixes#19570
## Type of change
- Refactor
## How Has This Been Tested?
All existing tests should pass
### Test Plan
> Add Testsmith test cases links that relate to this PR
### Issues raised during DP testing
https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/19643#issuecomment-1383570810https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/19643#issuecomment-1383607820https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/19643#issuecomment-1385095478
[Bug bash
issues](https://www.notion.so/appsmith/610aa302f3e146a7b090b7dc6bc63ef9?v=0d277a9b07bf4aac9d717bcaf138c33a)
## Checklist:
### Dev activity
- [ ] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [ ] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [ ] My changes generate no new warnings
- [ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [ ] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag
### QA activity:
- [ ] Test plan has been approved by relevant developers
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by QA
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by either SDET or
manual QA
- [ ] Organized project review call with relevant stakeholders after
Round 1/2 of QA
- [ ] Added Test Plan Approved label after reveiwing all Cypress test
* Added Library modifications in git status modal.
* Removed segment from recommended libraries.
* Added AWS-SDK.
* Added Papa parse 5.
* Added Appwrite.
* Removed the URL regex that checks to see if the URL ends with .js
* Changed supabase library URL to one that works with Appsmith.
* Added animation to libraries section in explorer.
Fixes#19691Fixes#19646
## Description
Adds a description field to the PageDTO so that we can add a short
description of a page. This will be used to fill the meta tags for
internal use case apps for better visibility on Google
Fixes#19572
## Type of change
- New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
The introduction of MetaWidgets in
https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/15839 introduces a scenario
where widgets are newly added to the unevalTree but already have defined
meta values. These previously defined meta values have higher priority
and should not get overridden by default values.
Fixes https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/16926
## Type of change
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
- New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
## How Has This Been Tested?
> Please describe the tests that you ran to verify your changes. Provide
instructions, so we can reproduce.
> Please also list any relevant details for your test configuration.
> Delete anything that is not important
- Manual
- Jest
- Cypress
### Test Plan
> Add Testsmith test cases links that relate to this PR
### Issues raised during DP testing
> Link issues raised during DP testing for better visiblity and tracking
(copy link from comments dropped on this PR)
## Checklist:
### Dev activity
- [ ] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [ ] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [ ] My changes generate no new warnings
- [ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [ ] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag
### QA activity:
- [ ] Test plan has been approved by relevant developers
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by QA
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by either SDET or
manual QA
- [ ] Organized project review call with relevant stakeholders after
Round 1/2 of QA
- [ ] Added Test Plan Approved label after reveiwing all Cypress test
## Description
Starts work on the Multi Pane IDE that would be behind a feature flag
right now. We will continue work on this behind the scenes
> New shiny Multi Pane layout that will be unwrapped after a few months
Fixes#19210
## Type of change
- New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
- Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing
functionality to not work as expected)
## How Has This Been Tested?
> Please describe the tests that you ran to verify your changes. Provide
instructions, so we can reproduce.
> Please also list any relevant details for your test configuration.
> Delete anything that is not important
- Manual
- Jest
- Cypress
### Test Plan
> Add Testsmith test cases links that relate to this PR
### Issues raised during DP testing
> Link issues raised during DP testing for better visiblity and tracking
(copy link from comments dropped on this PR)
## Checklist:
### Dev activity
- [ ] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [ ] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [ ] My changes generate no new warnings
- [ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [ ] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag
### QA activity:
- [ ] Test plan has been approved by relevant developers
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by QA
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by either SDET or
manual QA
- [ ] Organized project review call with relevant stakeholders after
Round 1/2 of QA
- [ ] Added Test Plan Approved label after reveiwing all Cypress test
## Description
This PR includes Changes for Drag and drop Improvements, That includes,
- Resizing dragging widgets along Container edges.
- Initially resize widgets against Container/Droptarget widgets.
- While holding close to Container/Droptarget widgets for half a second,
start to reflow the widget.
Fixes#19139Fixes#12892
Media
https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/71900764/209154834-66acecbb-2df8-4598-86d5-4fe7843dd21b.mp4
## Type of change
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
- New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Manual
- Jest
### Test Plan
> Add Testsmith test cases links that relate to this PR
### Issues raised during DP testing
> Link issues raised during DP testing for better visiblity and tracking
(copy link from comments dropped on this PR)
## Checklist:
### Dev activity
- [x] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] My changes generate no new warnings
- [x] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [x] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag
### QA activity:
- [ ] Test plan has been approved by relevant developers
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by QA
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by either SDET or
manual QA
- [ ] Organized project review call with relevant stakeholders after
Round 1/2 of QA
- [ ] Added Test Plan Approved label after reveiwing all Cypress test
Add segment's `anonymousId` as a header in all API calls.
cached id ->
[details](https://segment.com/docs/connections/sources/catalog/libraries/website/javascript/identity/#segment-id-persistence)
On Page load actions:
- If segment is enabled:
- and cached id exists -> trigger with cached id
- if cached id doesn’t exist, we wait for max 2 seconds.
- if segment init is success -> trigger with anonymous id
- if failed/delayed -> trigger without anonymous id
- If segment is disabled we don’t wait at all and anonymous id is not
sent.
Signed-off-by: Shrikant Sharat Kandula <shrikant@appsmith.com>
Co-authored-by: Shrikant Sharat Kandula <shrikant@appsmith.com>
Co-authored-by: Hetu Nandu <hetu@appsmith.com>
This PR includes following changes:
- With latest datasource autosave improvements, we do not save the
datasource immediately but save it on explicit click of save button, so
in case user has not saved any changes and tries to leave the page, we
have added a popup to inform users that they have unsaved changes and
whether they would like to save them or not.
- The issue was in case of postgres and authenticated API datasource,
this popup was getting seen even when the user has not made any changes
in the datasource configuration. This PR solves that issue.
- The unsaved changes popup needs to be shown only when user has made
any new changes in the datasource form
TL;DR
- We have used redux form's isDirty method to check if user has made any
new updates to the form or not. This isDirty compares initial value of
datasource form with current form value and if current form value is
different it shows the unsaved changes popup
- The issue occurred because in case of postgres and authenticated API
datasource, we initialise 1 default pair of host address and port
(postgres), and default pairs of headers and query parameters
(Authenticated API). These initial default changes made the form dirty
and so user used to see the popup even when they have not explicitly
made any changes.
- This PR fixes the issue by setting initial form value with these
defaults so they do not make the form dirty.
Fixes#18962 , #18998https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/30018882/208931098-b570e3c4-10bc-4b76-bd54-531ccf869436.mov
Co-authored-by: “sneha122” <“sneha@appsmith.com”>
Co-authored-by: Aishwarya UR <aishwarya@appsmith.com>
## Description
> Removing temporarily copied action to a page when API responds with an
error.
Fixes [#19159](https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/19159)
## Type of change
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
## How Has This Been Tested?
> Tested the same scenario locally. The issue was with coping an action
to another page that doesn't have a create action permission. Fixed that
in this PR and it reverts to the old state without page refresh when API
responds with an error. Moving the action works fine with an error
response from API. Didn't need any fixing.
- Manual
## Checklist:
### Dev activity
- [x] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] My changes generate no new warnings
- [ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [x] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag
### QA activity:
- [ ] Test plan has been approved by relevant developers
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by QA
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by either SDET or
manual QA
- [ ] Organized project review call with relevant stakeholders after
Round 1/2 of QA
- [ ] Added Test Plan Approved label after reveiwing all Cypress test
## Description
Building on top of [Command Click](#18326) we are now adding more links
for entities where navigation is possible.
This is mainly JS Objects where function and variable names are part of
the code itself. Clicking on the link will navigate to the JS Object and
set the cursor on the item you clicked on.
We are also enabling this for Form Widget where in `Form1.data.Input1`
the "Input1" link will take you to that widget
> TLDR;
You can now command click on nested properties of an entity
Fixes#18636
## Description
When forking a template, we fetch the page list that comes with the
template. But we only fetch the first page, and not the rest. Hence we
won't have the permissions for the rest of the page. So the changes now
fetch the pages which we get from the template on fork.
Fixes#19127
## Type of change
> Please delete options that are not relevant.
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Manual
## Checklist:
### Dev activity
- [x] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] My changes generate no new warnings
- [ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [x] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag
This PR contains changes to retain context on the following items,
Leaving and then returning to a page should maintain what api/query was open
Entity explorer should stay as you left it when you left the page (collapse levels)
Widget/explorer tab
Width - Should be the same across all pages of an app
Property Pane width
Complex widgets, multi tier property panes
Co-authored-by: hetunandu <hetunandu@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Akash N <akash@codemonk.in>
Co-authored-by: Hetu Nandu <hetu@appsmith.com>
Co-authored-by: Aishwarya UR <aishwarya@appsmith.com>
* Aggregate calls to add and remove Appsmith errors
* fix switch type
* Fix entity deletion errors
* Code clean up
* fix cypress tests
* Return early for empty errors in Appsmith debugger
* Remove redundant identifier
* Retain order of debugger logs
* Use push instead of unshift for perf reasons
* redundant commit to retrigger CI
