d0162013f6
5 Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Favour Ohanekwu
|
bf247a359a
|
feat: Improve error message for typeError (#27795) | ||
|
Rishabh Rathod
|
b863b39d69
|
feat: Add linting error for assignment expression (#25140)
## Description This change adds a linting error for direct mutation of widget property like `Widget.property = "dsf"` and instead suggests to use setter methods. #### PR fixes following issue(s) Fixes #5822 #### Type of change - New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality) ## Testing - [x] Add jest tests as mentioned in the [comments](https://www.notion.so/appsmith/Widget-Property-Setters-Tech-Spec-2a34730e2e6d4df8ae7637c363b1096c?pvs=4#276554d9875b42d68868aa969e9d7d03) of the tech spec document for this project. - [x] Add test to verify linting error for widget assignment - [x] Add cypress test for autocomplete of more setter methods - [x] Add cypress test for currencyInput setValue #### How Has This Been Tested? - [ ] Manual - [ ] Jest - [x] Cypress #### Test Plan #### Issues raised during DP testing ## Checklist: #### Dev activity - [ ] My code follows the style guidelines of this project - [ ] I have performed a self-review of my own code - [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas - [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation - [ ] My changes generate no new warnings - [ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works - [ ] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes - [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag #### QA activity: - [ ] [Speedbreak features](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#speedbreakers-) have been covered - [ ] Test plan covers all impacted features and [areas of interest](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#areas-of-interest-) - [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by project stakeholders and other QA members - [ ] Manually tested functionality on DP - [ ] We had an implementation alignment call with stakeholders post QA Round 2 - [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: Druthi Polisetty <druthi@appsmith.com> |
||
|
Favour Ohanekwu
|
e6f2dcacde
|
feat: Improve Linting performance (#23865)
## 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 #23447 Fixes #23166 Fixes #24194 Fixes #23720 Fixes #23868 Fixes #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> |
||
|
Anand Srinivasan
|
9dd015a1e6
|
feat: peek overlay nested properties + perf improvements (#23414)
Fixes #23057 Fixes #23054 ## Description TL;DR Added support for peeking on nested properties. e.g. `Api1.data[0].id`. This won't work when: - local variables are involved in the expression. e.g. `Api1.data[x].id` won't support peeking at the variable `[x]` or anything after that. - library code is involved e.g. `moment`, `_` etc... - when functions are called. e.g. Api1.data[0].id.toFixed() Because these cases requires evaluation. <img width="355" alt="image" src="https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/assets/66776129/d09d1f0d-1692-46f5-8ec1-592f4fe75f7a"> #### Media (old vs new) https://www.loom.com/share/dedcf113439c4ee2a19028acca54045e ## Performance improvements: - Use AST to identify expressions instead marking text manually. - This reduces the number of markers we process (~ half). - Before  - After  - AST logs https://www.loom.com/share/ddde93233cc8470ea04309d8a8332240 #### Type of change - Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue) - New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality) ## Testing > #### How Has This Been Tested? - [x] Manual - [x] Jest - [x] Cypress > > #### Test Plan https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/issues/2402 #### Issues raised during DP testing https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/23414#issuecomment-1553164908 ## Checklist: #### Dev activity - [x] My code follows the style guidelines of this project - [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code - [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas - [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation - [x] My changes generate no new warnings - [x] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works - [x] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes - [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag #### QA activity: - [x] [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 |
||
|
Valera Melnikov
|
9f607d250d
|
chore: move local dependency to packages (#23395)
## Description 1. Move everything related to client from app folder to client folder (`.yarn`, `yarn.lock`, package.json, .gitignore) 2. Move `ast` and `rst` to client packages 3. Fix running scripts in packages 4. Add running unit tests in packages in CI TODO: It is necessary to consider enabling the `nmHoistingLimits: workspaces` option, since now all packages are hoisted to the root, there may be issues with dependencies in workspaces. Also, there is a possibility of implicit use of packages. https://yarnpkg.com/configuration/yarnrc#nmHoistingLimits #### PR fixes following issue(s) Fixes #23333 #### Type of change - Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception) ## Testing #### How Has This Been Tested? - [x] Manual - [x] Jest - [x] Cypress ## Checklist: #### Dev activity - [x] My code follows the style guidelines of this project - [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code - [ ] 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 Co-authored-by: Valera Melnikov <melnikov.vv@greendatasoft.ru> |