## Description
Refactoring queries/JS section on entity explorer to support private
entities on packages
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes [#28495](https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/28495)
#### 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
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai
-->
## Summary by CodeRabbit
## Summary by CodeRabbit
- **New Features**
- Introduced new search filtering capabilities in the global search.
- Enhanced the `EntityExplorer` component to selectively display files
based on new criteria.
- **Enhancements**
- Expanded `JSCollection` interface to support workflow associations and
contextual actions.
- **Refactor**
- Streamlined naming functions with the introduction of
`CreateNewActionKey` enum to ensure consistency in action creation.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
## Description
In this fix, we've moved the canvas starter datasource prompt into the
newly introduced left side bar for data. This enhancement not only
ensures a more intuitive user experience but also establishes a clear
and cohesive relationship with the data button, streamlining the
workflow for a more efficient and user-friendly interface.
Notion -
https://www.notion.so/appsmith/Bring-in-data-modal-pops-up-in-the-wrong-place-after-the-new-sidebar-update-ecfe985e89944caeb618ea1a19398342?pvs=4
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes#29484
#### Type of change
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
-
## Testing
#### How Has This Been Tested?
> Please describe the tests that you ran to verify your changes. Also
list any relevant details for your test configuration.
> Delete anything that is not relevant
- [x] Manual
- [ ] JUnit
- [ ] Jest
- [ ] Cypress
>
>
#### Test Plan
> Add Testsmith test cases links that relate to this PR
>
>
#### Issues raised during DP testing
> Link issues raised during DP testing for better visiblity and tracking
(copy link from comments dropped on this PR)
>
>
>
## Checklist:
#### Dev activity
- [ ] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [ ] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [ ] My changes generate no new warnings
- [ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [ ] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag
#### QA activity:
- [ ] [Speedbreak
features](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#speedbreakers-)
have been covered
- [ ] Test plan covers all impacted features and [areas of
interest](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#areas-of-interest-)
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by project stakeholders and other
QA members
- [ ] Manually tested functionality on DP
- [ ] We had an implementation alignment call with stakeholders post QA
Round 2
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by SDET/manual QA
- [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after Cypress tests were reviewed
- [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after JUnit tests were reviewed
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai
-->
## Summary by CodeRabbit
- **Style**
- Improved the visual layout of popover components for better user
interface alignment.
- **Refactor**
- Streamlined the user interface by removing the
`DatasourceStarterLayoutPrompt` from the `EntityExplorer` component.
- Enhanced the `SidebarButton` component to conditionally render the
`DatasourceStarterLayoutPrompt` based on context, ensuring a more
dynamic and responsive user experience.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
## Description
> Added tags to cases
- cypress/e2e/Regression/ClientSide/Workspace - @tag.Workspace
- cypress/e2e/Regression/ServerSide/ApiTests - @tag.Datasource
- cypress/e2e/Regression/ServerSide/Datasources - @tag.Datasource
- cypress/e2e/Regression/ServerSide/GenerateCRUD - @tag.Datasource
- cypress/e2e/Regression/ServerSide/JsFunctionExecution - @tag.JS
- cypress/e2e/Regression/ServerSide/OnLoadTests - @tag.PropertyPane
- cypress/e2e/Sanity/Datasources - @tag.Datasource
- cypress/e2e/Regression/ServerSide/QueryPane - @tag.Datasource
#### Type of change
- Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception)
>
## Testing
> /ok-to-test tags="@tag.Workspace, @tag.PropertyPane, @tag.JS"
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [ ] Manual
- [ ] Cypress
## Checklist:
#### Dev activity
- [ ] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [ ] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [ ] My changes generate no new warnings
- [ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [ ] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag
#### QA activity:
- [ ] [Speedbreak
features](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#speedbreakers-)
have been covered
- [ ] Test plan covers all impacted features and [areas of
interest](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#areas-of-interest-)
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by project stakeholders and other
QA members
- [ ] Manually tested functionality on DP
- [ ] We had an implementation alignment call with stakeholders post QA
Round 2
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by SDET/manual QA
- [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after Cypress tests were reviewed
- [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after JUnit tests were reviewed
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai
-->
## Summary by CodeRabbit
- **Tests**
- Enhanced test suites for Radio, Rating, and Select widgets with
metadata tags for improved categorization and filtering.
- Updated test descriptions and restructured test cases for better
clarity and organization.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
## Description
> Added tags to cases
- cypress/e2e/Regression/ClientSide/Widgets/Modal - @tag.Modal,
@tag.Widget
- cypress/e2e/Regression/ClientSide/Widgets/Multiselect -
@tag.Multiselect, @tag.Widget
- cypress/e2e/Regression/ClientSide/Widgets/PhoneInput -
@tag.PhoneInput, @tag.Widget
- cypress/e2e/Regression/ClientSide/Widgets/RTE - @tag.TextEditor,
@tag.Widget
- cypress/e2e/Regression/ClientSide/Widgets/Radio - @tag.Radio,
@tag.Widget
- cypress/e2e/Regression/ClientSide/Widgets/Select - @tag.Select,
@tag.Widget
-
cypress/e2e/Regression/ClientSide/Widgets/Others/StatBox_DragAndDrop_spec.js
- @tag.Statbox, @tag.Widget
- cypress/e2e/Regression/ClientSide/Widgets/Rating - @tag.Rating,
@tag.Widget
- cypress/e2e/Regression/ClientSide/Widgets/Others/Progress_spec.js -
@tag.Progress, @tag.Widget
- cypress/e2e/Regression/ClientSide/Widgets/Others/MapChart_Spec.ts -
@tag.Maps, @tag.Widget
#### Type of change
- Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception)
>
## Testing
> /ok-to-test tags="@tag.Radio, @tag.TextEditor, @tag.PhoneInput,
@tag.Maps"
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [ ] Manual
- [ ] Cypress
## Checklist:
#### Dev activity
- [ ] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [ ] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [ ] My changes generate no new warnings
- [ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [ ] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag
#### QA activity:
- [ ] [Speedbreak
features](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#speedbreakers-)
have been covered
- [ ] Test plan covers all impacted features and [areas of
interest](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#areas-of-interest-)
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by project stakeholders and other
QA members
- [ ] Manually tested functionality on DP
- [ ] We had an implementation alignment call with stakeholders post QA
Round 2
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by SDET/manual QA
- [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after Cypress tests were reviewed
- [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after JUnit tests were reviewed
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai
-->
## Summary by CodeRabbit
- **Tests**
- Enhanced test suites for Radio, Rating, and Select widgets with
metadata tags for improved categorization and filtering.
- Updated test descriptions and restructured test cases for better
clarity and organization.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
## Description
> Added tags to
- cypress/e2e/Regression/ClientSide/Widgets/Filepicker - @tag.Filepicker
- cypress/e2e/Regression/ClientSide/Widgets/Form - @tag.Form
- cypress/e2e/Regression/ClientSide/Widgets/Iframe - @tag.Iframe
- cypress/e2e/Regression/ClientSide/Widgets/Image - @tag.Image
- cypress/e2e/Regression/ClientSide/Widgets/Input - @tag.Input
#### Type of change
- Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception)
## Testing
> /ok-to-test tags="@tag.Widget"
> /ok-to-test tags="@tag.Filepicker ,@tag.Image"
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [ ] Manual
- [ ] Cypress
## Checklist:
#### Dev activity
- [ ] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [ ] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [ ] My changes generate no new warnings
- [ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [ ] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag
#### QA activity:
- [ ] [Speedbreak
features](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#speedbreakers-)
have been covered
- [ ] Test plan covers all impacted features and [areas of
interest](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#areas-of-interest-)
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by project stakeholders and other
QA members
- [ ] Manually tested functionality on DP
- [ ] We had an implementation alignment call with stakeholders post QA
Round 2
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by SDET/manual QA
- [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after Cypress tests were reviewed
- [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after JUnit tests were reviewed
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai
-->
## Summary by CodeRabbit
- **Refactor**
- Enhanced test suites with tags for better categorization and
searchability.
- Improved test descriptions and reordered test steps for clarity.
- Updated test suites to use arrow functions for consistency.
- **Tests**
- Expanded test coverage for file picker widgets, including additional
file formats.
- Added new test cases for form widget functionalities and validations.
- Refined iframe widget tests to verify different aspects separately.
- Adjusted image widget tests and input widget tests for improved
validation and functionality checks.
- **Chores**
- Updated tags.js file to reflect the latest tagging conventions for
tests.
- **Style**
- Standardized formatting across various test suites to maintain code
cleanliness and readability.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
## Description
> Added tags to cases in
- cypress/e2e/Regression/ClientSide/PropertyPane
- cypress/e2e/Regression/ClientSide/ThemingTests
- cypress/e2e/Regression/ClientSide/Refactoring
- cypress/e2e/Regression/ClientSide/ProductRamps
- cypress/e2e/Regression/ClientSide/Performance
- cypress/e2e/Regression/ClientSide/PeekOverlay
#### Type of change
- Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception)
## Testing
> /ok-to-test tags="@tag.JS, @tag.Perf, @tag.Settings,
@tag.PropertyPane, @tag.Theme"
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [ ] Manual
- [ ] Cypress
## Checklist:
#### Dev activity
- [ ] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [ ] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [ ] My changes generate no new warnings
- [ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [ ] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag
#### QA activity:
- [ ] [Speedbreak
features](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#speedbreakers-)
have been covered
- [ ] Test plan covers all impacted features and [areas of
interest](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#areas-of-interest-)
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by project stakeholders and other
QA members
- [ ] Manually tested functionality on DP
- [ ] We had an implementation alignment call with stakeholders post QA
Round 2
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by SDET/manual QA
- [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after Cypress tests were reviewed
- [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after JUnit tests were reviewed
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai
-->
## Summary by CodeRabbit
- **Tests**
- Enhanced test categorization with the addition of tags for better
filtering and identification across various test suites.
- Improved readability and maintenance of test cases through
reformatting and restructuring.
- Updated test suite options for improved test coverage and
identification.
- **Refactor**
- Optimized test setup and execution logic for several feature-related
test suites.
- **Bug Fixes**
- Adjusted test cases to accurately reflect application behavior,
particularly in toast message validation and property setting scenarios.
- **Documentation**
- Added comments for clarity in test code to aid in understanding test
case intent and functionality.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
## Description
> Added tags to cases in
- cypress/e2e/Regression/ClientSide/MobileResponsiveTests/
#### Type of change
- Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception)
## Testing
> /ok-to-test tags="@tag.MobileResponsive"
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [ ] Manual
- [ ] Cypress
## Checklist:
#### Dev activity
- [ ] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [ ] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [ ] My changes generate no new warnings
- [ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [ ] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag
#### QA activity:
- [ ] [Speedbreak
features](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#speedbreakers-)
have been covered
- [ ] Test plan covers all impacted features and [areas of
interest](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#areas-of-interest-)
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by project stakeholders and other
QA members
- [ ] Manually tested functionality on DP
- [ ] We had an implementation alignment call with stakeholders post QA
Round 2
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by SDET/manual QA
- [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after Cypress tests were reviewed
- [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after JUnit tests were reviewed
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai
-->
## Summary by CodeRabbit
- **Tests**
- Enhanced mobile responsiveness test suites with additional tags and
assertions to ensure consistent behavior across various devices.
- Improved test structure for clarity and better simulation of user
interactions on mobile viewports.
- Increased coverage for widget dimension validations after viewport
changes.
- **Refactor**
- Reorganized test cases and logic for a more streamlined testing
process.
- **Documentation**
- Updated test descriptions and added comments for better understanding
of test purpose and functionality.
- **Chores**
- Adjusted test suite setups and teardowns for optimized test execution.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
## Description
- Allowing static split of cypress specs in CI runs.
- Optimised the spec allocation by considering the duration history for
each spec.
- Updated the affecting workflows to utilise the static split
#### Type of change
- Workflows
- Cypress-split pugin
## Testing
- Workflow run
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai
-->
## Summary by CodeRabbit
- **New Features**
- Introduced a new environment variable to optimize test resource
allocation during CI/CD processes.
- Enhanced Cypress testing with dynamic and static test splitting
strategies.
- **Refactor**
- Refactored Cypress plugin configuration to support conditional test
splitting based on the environment variable.
- **Chores**
- Updated GitHub Actions workflows to include new environment variables
for test runs.
- **Documentation**
- Updated internal documentation to reflect changes in test setup and
execution strategies.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
## Description
> Added tags to cases
- cypress/e2e/Regression/ClientSide/Widgets/JSONForm - @tag.JSONForm,
@tag.Widget
- cypress/e2e/Regression/ClientSide/Widgets/List - @tag.List,
@tag.Widget
- cypress/e2e/Regression/ClientSide/Widgets/ListV2 - @tag.List,
@tag.Widget
#### Type of change
- Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception)
>
## Testing
> /ok-to-test tags="@tag.JSONForm, @tag.List"
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [ ] Manual
- [ ] Cypress
## Checklist:
#### Dev activity
- [ ] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [ ] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [ ] My changes generate no new warnings
- [ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [ ] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag
#### QA activity:
- [ ] [Speedbreak
features](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#speedbreakers-)
have been covered
- [ ] Test plan covers all impacted features and [areas of
interest](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#areas-of-interest-)
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by project stakeholders and other
QA members
- [ ] Manually tested functionality on DP
- [ ] We had an implementation alignment call with stakeholders post QA
Round 2
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by SDET/manual QA
- [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after Cypress tests were reviewed
- [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after JUnit tests were reviewed
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai
-->
## Summary by CodeRabbit
- **Refactor**
- Enhanced testing suites for the JSON Form and List widgets with
improved categorization and readability.
- Improved test cases for field visibility, disabling, default values,
and widget functionality across various components.
- **Tests**
- Added new test cases to cover additional scenarios for JSON Form
fields and List widget interactions.
- Refined existing tests to increase reliability and coverage.
- **Documentation**
- Updated test suite descriptions with tags for better organization and
clarity.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
## Description
> Added tags to cases
- cypress/e2e/Regression/ClientSide/Widgets/ContainerTest2_spec.ts -
@tag.Container, @tag.Widget
- cypress/e2e/Regression/ClientSide/Widgets/Switch - @tag.Switch
@tag.Widget
- cypress/e2e/Regression/ClientSide/Widgets/Sliders - @tag.Slider,
@tag.Widget
- cypress/e2e/Regression/ClientSide/Widgets/Tab - @tag.Tab, @tag.Widget
- cypress/e2e/Regression/ClientSide/Widgets/TableV1 - @tag.Table,
@tag.Widget
- cypress/e2e/Regression/ClientSide/Widgets/TableV2, @tag.Widget
- cypress/e2e/Regression/ClientSide/Widgets/Video, @tag.Widget
- cypress/e2e/Regression/ClientSide/Widgets/TreeSelect - @tag.Select,
@tag.Widget
#### Type of change
- Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception)
>
## Testing
> /ok-to-test tags="@tag.Container, @tag.Video, @tag.Table, @tag.Switch"
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [ ] Manual
- [ ] Cypress
## Checklist:
#### Dev activity
- [ ] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [ ] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [ ] My changes generate no new warnings
- [ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [ ] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag
#### QA activity:
- [ ] [Speedbreak
features](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#speedbreakers-)
have been covered
- [ ] Test plan covers all impacted features and [areas of
interest](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#areas-of-interest-)
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by project stakeholders and other
QA members
- [ ] Manually tested functionality on DP
- [ ] We had an implementation alignment call with stakeholders post QA
Round 2
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by SDET/manual QA
- [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after Cypress tests were reviewed
- [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after JUnit tests were reviewed
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai
-->
## Summary by CodeRabbit
- **Tests**
- Enhanced test suites for Radio, Rating, and Select widgets with
metadata tags for improved categorization and filtering.
- Updated test descriptions and restructured test cases for better
clarity and organization.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
## Description
> Added tags
- cypress/e2e/Regression/ClientSide/Widgets/Audio - @tag.Audio,
@tag.Widget
- cypress/e2e/Regression/ClientSide/Widgets/Button - @tag.Button,
@tag.Widget
- cypress/e2e/Regression/ClientSide/Widgets/Camera - @tag.Camera,
@tag.Widget
- cypress/e2e/Regression/ClientSide/Widgets/Chart - @tag.Chart,
@tag.Widget
#### Type of change
- Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception)
## Testing
> /ok-to-test tags="@tag.Widget"
> /ok-to-test tags="@tag.Camera"
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [ ] Manual
- [ ] Cypress
## Checklist:
#### Dev activity
- [ ] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [ ] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [ ] My changes generate no new warnings
- [ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [ ] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag
#### QA activity:
- [ ] [Speedbreak
features](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#speedbreakers-)
have been covered
- [ ] Test plan covers all impacted features and [areas of
interest](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#areas-of-interest-)
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by project stakeholders and other
QA members
- [ ] Manually tested functionality on DP
- [ ] We had an implementation alignment call with stakeholders post QA
Round 2
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by SDET/manual QA
- [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after Cypress tests were reviewed
- [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after JUnit tests were reviewed
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai
-->
## Summary by CodeRabbit
- **Tests**
- Enhanced test suites for Audio Recorder, Button, Camera, and Chart
widgets with additional assertions and validations.
- Added new test cases for various widget properties and events,
including style properties, form settings, and camera modes.
- Reorganized and reformatted existing test suites for improved
readability and maintainability.
- **Documentation**
- Updated test descriptions to include tags for better categorization
and traceability.
- **Bug Fixes**
- Modified test logic to ensure thorough verification of widget
functionalities and event triggers.
- **Refactor**
- Reorganized test cases into individual `it` blocks for clarity.
- Adjusted test control flows for more precise behavior validation.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
## Description
> Added tags
- cypress/e2e/Regression/ClientSide/UserProfile/ - @tag.Settings
- cypress/e2e/Regression/ClientSide/VisualTests/ - @tag.Settings
- cypress/e2e/Regression/ClientSide/Walkthrough/ - @tag.Binding
#### Type of change
- Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception)
## Testing
>/ok-to-test tags="@tag.Settings, @tag.Binding"
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [ ] Manual
- [ ] Cypress
## Checklist:
#### Dev activity
- [ ] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [ ] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [ ] My changes generate no new warnings
- [ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [ ] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag
#### QA activity:
- [ ] [Speedbreak
features](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#speedbreakers-)
have been covered
- [ ] Test plan covers all impacted features and [areas of
interest](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#areas-of-interest-)
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by project stakeholders and other
QA members
- [ ] Manually tested functionality on DP
- [ ] We had an implementation alignment call with stakeholders post QA
Round 2
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by SDET/manual QA
- [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after Cypress tests were reviewed
- [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after JUnit tests were reviewed
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai
-->
## Summary by CodeRabbit
- **Tests**
- Enhanced the "Update User Picture" end-to-end test to include checks
for "Remove" text and file upload functionality.
- Introduced a new test case to handle and validate error messages for
invalid file uploads.
- Updated the "Update User's Name" test suite with a settings tag for
better categorization.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
## Description
> Added tags to cases in
- cypress/e2e/Regression/ClientSide/IDE
- cypress/e2e/Regression/ClientSide/JSObject
#### Type of change
- Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception)
## Testing
> /ok-to-test tags="@tag.IDE"
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [ ] Manual
- [ ] Cypress
## Checklist:
#### Dev activity
- [ ] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [ ] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [ ] My changes generate no new warnings
- [ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [ ] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag
#### QA activity:
- [ ] [Speedbreak
features](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#speedbreakers-)
have been covered
- [ ] Test plan covers all impacted features and [areas of
interest](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#areas-of-interest-)
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by project stakeholders and other
QA members
- [ ] Manually tested functionality on DP
- [ ] We had an implementation alignment call with stakeholders post QA
Round 2
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by SDET/manual QA
- [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after Cypress tests were reviewed
- [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after JUnit tests were reviewed
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai
-->
## Summary by CodeRabbit
## Summary by CodeRabbit
- **Tests**
- Enhanced test suite descriptions and added categorization tags for
better filtering.
- Improved test code structure and added explanatory comments for
increased clarity and maintainability.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
## Description
> Added tags to
- cypress/e2e/Regression/ClientSide/Widgets/Checkbox - @tag.Checkbox,
@tag.Widget
- cypress/e2e/Regression/ClientSide/Widgets/CodeScanne - @tag.Scanner,
@tag.Widget
- cypress/e2e/Regression/ClientSide/Widgets/CurrencyInput -
@tag.CurrencyInput, @tag.Widget
- cypress/e2e/Regression/ClientSide/Widgets/Datepicker -
@tag.Datepicker, @tag.Widget
- cypress/e2e/Regression/ClientSide/Widgets/DocumentViewer -
@tag.DocumentViewer, @tag.Widget
- cypress/e2e/Regression/ClientSide/Widgets/Dropdown - @tag.Dropdown,
@tag.Widget
#### Type of change
- Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception)
## Testing
> /ok-to-test tags="@tag.Widget"
> /ok-to-test tags="@tag.Scanner,@tag.Checkbox"
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [ ] Manual
- [ ] Cypress
## Checklist:
#### Dev activity
- [ ] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [ ] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [ ] My changes generate no new warnings
- [ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [ ] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag
#### QA activity:
- [ ] [Speedbreak
features](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#speedbreakers-)
have been covered
- [ ] Test plan covers all impacted features and [areas of
interest](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#areas-of-interest-)
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by project stakeholders and other
QA members
- [ ] Manually tested functionality on DP
- [ ] We had an implementation alignment call with stakeholders post QA
Round 2
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by SDET/manual QA
- [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after Cypress tests were reviewed
- [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after JUnit tests were reviewed
Completes the List and Add states of Queries / JS / UI of Page Pane
Segments
fixes#29081fixes#29501
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai
-->
## Summary by CodeRabbit
- **New Features**
- Introduced new URL building functions for widgets and queries.
- Added new UI elements for creating widgets and queries.
- Implemented new routing paths for widget and query creation.
- **Enhancements**
- Updated text labels for clarity in various components.
- Improved sorting logic for page pane data.
- Enhanced global search with additional display titles.
- **Bug Fixes**
- Corrected styling inconsistencies in the IDE's main pane.
- Fixed routing issues for adding new queries and widgets.
- **Documentation**
- Updated button text to reflect new features for end-users.
- **Style**
- Applied new styles for the search bar and other UI components.
Please note that some internal code changes and refactorings have been
omitted from these notes to focus on user-facing features and
improvements.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
> Pull Request Template
>
> Use this template to quickly create a well written pull request.
Delete all quotes before creating the pull request.
>
## Description
> Add a TL;DR when description is extra long (helps content team)
>
> Please include a summary of the changes and which issue has been
fixed. Please also include relevant motivation
> and context. List any dependencies that are required for this change
>
> Links to Notion, Figma or any other documents that might be relevant
to the PR
>
>
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes # (issue number)
> if no issue exists, please create an issue and ask the maintainers
about this first
>
>
#### Media
> A video or a GIF is preferred. when using Loom, don’t embed because it
looks like it’s a GIF. instead, just link to the video
>
>
#### Type of change
> Please delete options that are not relevant.
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
- New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
- Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing
functionality to not work as expected)
- Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception)
- This change requires a documentation update
>
>
>
## Testing
>
#### How Has This Been Tested?
> Please describe the tests that you ran to verify your changes. Also
list any relevant details for your test configuration.
> Delete anything that is not relevant
- [ ] Manual
- [ ] JUnit
- [ ] Jest
- [ ] Cypress
>
>
#### Test Plan
> Add Testsmith test cases links that relate to this PR
>
>
#### Issues raised during DP testing
> Link issues raised during DP testing for better visiblity and tracking
(copy link from comments dropped on this PR)
>
>
>
## Checklist:
#### Dev activity
- [ ] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [ ] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [ ] My changes generate no new warnings
- [ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [ ] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag
#### QA activity:
- [ ] [Speedbreak
features](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#speedbreakers-)
have been covered
- [ ] Test plan covers all impacted features and [areas of
interest](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#areas-of-interest-)
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by project stakeholders and other
QA members
- [ ] Manually tested functionality on DP
- [ ] We had an implementation alignment call with stakeholders post QA
Round 2
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by SDET/manual QA
- [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after Cypress tests were reviewed
- [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after JUnit tests were reviewed
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai
-->
## Summary by CodeRabbit
- **New Features**
- Implemented Git synchronization capabilities for action collections.
- **Enhancements**
- Improved validation and error handling for action and collection
creation and updates.
- **Refactoring**
- Centralized logic for setting Git synchronization identifiers.
- Increased the scope of certain service fields to protected for
extended access in subclasses.
- **Documentation**
- Corrected a typo in method documentation.
- **Bug Fixes**
- Ensured default context is provided when none is specified to prevent
errors.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
## Description
> Added tags to cases in
- cypress/e2e/Regression/ClientSide/OneClickBinding
#### Type of change
- Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception)
## Testing
> /ok-to-test tags="@tag.Binding"
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [ ] Manual
- [ ] Cypress
## Checklist:
#### Dev activity
- [ ] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [ ] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [ ] My changes generate no new warnings
- [ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [ ] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag
#### QA activity:
- [ ] [Speedbreak
features](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#speedbreakers-)
have been covered
- [ ] Test plan covers all impacted features and [areas of
interest](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#areas-of-interest-)
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by project stakeholders and other
QA members
- [ ] Manually tested functionality on DP
- [ ] We had an implementation alignment call with stakeholders post QA
Round 2
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by SDET/manual QA
- [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after Cypress tests were reviewed
- [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after JUnit tests were reviewed
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai
-->
## Summary by CodeRabbit
- **Tests**
- Enhanced end-to-end test coverage with new test cases and tags for
better organization.
- Improved existing test cases for the JSONForm and Table widgets,
including additional assertions and interactions.
- Synchronized test execution with application behavior through added
waits.
- Expanded test scenarios for one-click binding features across various
widgets and data sources.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
## Description
> Add tags to cases in
- cypress/e2e/Regression/ClientSide/DynamicHeight
- cypress/e2e/Regression/ClientSide/ExplorerTests
- cypress/e2e/Regression/ClientSide/EmbedSettings
- cypress/e2e/Regression/ClientSide/Editor
#### Type of change
- Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception)
## Testing
> /ok-to-test tags="@tag.AutoHeight"
#### 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.
- [ ] Manual
- [ ] Cypress
## Checklist:
#### Dev activity
- [ ] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [ ] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [ ] My changes generate no new warnings
- [ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [ ] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag
#### QA activity:
- [ ] [Speedbreak
features](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#speedbreakers-)
have been covered
- [ ] Test plan covers all impacted features and [areas of
interest](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#areas-of-interest-)
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by project stakeholders and other
QA members
- [ ] Manually tested functionality on DP
- [ ] We had an implementation alignment call with stakeholders post QA
Round 2
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by SDET/manual QA
- [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after Cypress tests were reviewed
- [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after JUnit tests were reviewed
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai
-->
## Summary by CodeRabbit
- **Refactor**
- Reorganized test suite structures and added categorization tags to
improve test clarity and maintainability.
- **Style**
- Reformatted code across multiple test files for better readability and
consistency.
- **Tests**
- Enhanced existing test cases with additional assertions for element
visibility and CSS attribute values.
- Adjusted test control flows and logic for dynamic height and width
validation across various widgets.
- Updated test descriptions and restructured test steps to align with
testing best practices.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
## Description
split for overlay changes on EE to accommodate module instance
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes # (issue number)
> if no issue exists, please create an issue and ask the maintainers
about this first
>
>
#### Media
> A video or a GIF is preferred. when using Loom, don’t embed because it
looks like it’s a GIF. instead, just link to the video
>
>
#### Type of change
> Please delete options that are not relevant.
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
- New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
- Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing
functionality to not work as expected)
- Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception)
- This change requires a documentation update
>
>
>
## Testing
>
#### How Has This Been Tested?
> Please describe the tests that you ran to verify your changes. Also
list any relevant details for your test configuration.
> Delete anything that is not relevant
- [ ] Manual
- [ ] JUnit
- [ ] Jest
- [ ] Cypress
>
>
#### Test Plan
> Add Testsmith test cases links that relate to this PR
>
>
#### Issues raised during DP testing
> Link issues raised during DP testing for better visiblity and tracking
(copy link from comments dropped on this PR)
>
>
>
## Checklist:
#### Dev activity
- [ ] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [ ] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [ ] My changes generate no new warnings
- [ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [ ] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag
#### QA activity:
- [ ] [Speedbreak
features](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#speedbreakers-)
have been covered
- [ ] Test plan covers all impacted features and [areas of
interest](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#areas-of-interest-)
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by project stakeholders and other
QA members
- [ ] Manually tested functionality on DP
- [ ] We had an implementation alignment call with stakeholders post QA
Round 2
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by SDET/manual QA
- [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after Cypress tests were reviewed
- [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after JUnit tests were reviewed
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai
-->
## Summary by CodeRabbit
- **New Features**
- Introduced a new navigation data retrieval function to enhance
navigation within the app.
- **Refactor**
- Improved the `getEntitiesForNavigation` function to integrate new
navigation data.
- **Documentation**
- Updated import statements to reflect collaborative features between
different app modules.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
## Description
> Added tags to cases in
- cypress/e2e/Regression/ClientSide/Fork
- client/cypress/e2e/Regression/ClientSide/Git
#### Type of change
- Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception)
## Testing
>/ok-to-test tags="@tag.Fork"
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [x] Manual
- [x] Cypress
>
>
## Checklist:
#### Dev activity
- [ ] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [ ] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [ ] My changes generate no new warnings
- [ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [ ] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag
#### QA activity:
- [ ] [Speedbreak
features](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#speedbreakers-)
have been covered
- [ ] Test plan covers all impacted features and [areas of
interest](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#areas-of-interest-)
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by project stakeholders and other
QA members
- [ ] Manually tested functionality on DP
- [ ] We had an implementation alignment call with stakeholders post QA
Round 2
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by SDET/manual QA
- [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after Cypress tests were reviewed
- [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after JUnit tests were reviewed
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai
-->
## Summary by CodeRabbit
- **Refactor**
- Improved the structure and readability of test suites related to
forking applications.
- **Tests**
- Enhanced test descriptions and categorization with new tags for better
test management.
- Added new test scenarios for forking applications by non-signed users
and checking application properties post-fork.
- **Chores**
- Introduced new tags for test suites to facilitate automated test
height adjustment and forking feature identification.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
Another attempt at #29550, which was reverted. Fallback is not happening
if cert provisioning fails _despite_ having the correct header. But with
the changes in this PR, since we'll listen on `:80`, fallback _will_
happen when cert provisioning fails due to incorrect domain
configuration.
We're also adding [Hurl](https://hurl.dev) based tests. They're not run
in any CI yet. That'll come in soon.
## Description
> Added a cron job for the TBP workflow to run at 6 am on weekdays-
Daily Promotion analysis purpose
#### Type of change
- Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception)
## Testing
- To check if the workflow is triggered as expected
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [x] Manual
## 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
Renamed testcases starting with Bug to appropriate Feature_Bug eg
DS_Bug, JS_Bug etc. and tagged them.
Reverted the airgap change made to
1.
cypress/e2e/Regression/ClientSide/AdminSettings/Admin_settings_spec.js
2. cypress/e2e/Regression/ClientSide/Autocomplete/Bugs_AC_Spec.ts
Run Binding test cases -` /ok-to-test tags="@tag. Binding"`
Run JS test cases - `/ok-to-test tags="@tag.JS"`
Run ImportExport test cases - ` /ok-to-test tags="@tag.ImportExport"`
Run Binding test cases - `/ok-to-test tags="@tag.Binding"`
Few more datasource testcases added - `/ok-to-test
tags="@tag.Datasource"`
To run both Git and Datasource tagged testcases -` /ok-to-test
tags="@tag.Datasource,@tag.Git"`
>
#### Type of change
- Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception)
## Testing
> Ran ok to test with multiple tags
#### 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] Cypress
>
>
## Checklist:
#### Dev activity
- [ ] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [ ] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [ ] My changes generate no new warnings
- [ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [ ] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag
#### QA activity:
- [ ] [Speedbreak
features](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#speedbreakers-)
have been covered
- [ ] Test plan covers all impacted features and [areas of
interest](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#areas-of-interest-)
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by project stakeholders and other
QA members
- [ ] Manually tested functionality on DP
- [ ] We had an implementation alignment call with stakeholders post QA
Round 2
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by SDET/manual QA
- [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after Cypress tests were reviewed
- [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after JUnit tests were reviewed
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai
-->
## Summary by CodeRabbit
- **Tests**
- Enhanced test suite descriptions with relevant tags for better
categorization and filtering.
- Added new test cases for various bug verifications, ensuring features
like datasource interactions, API executions, and widget bindings work
as expected.
- Improved existing test cases with additional steps and assertions to
cover more scenarios and edge cases.
- **Bug Fixes**
- Implemented test cases to verify fixes for specific bugs related to
data source configurations, JavaScript object parsing, and UI component
behaviors.
- **Documentation**
- Updated test descriptions to provide clearer context and objectives
for each test suite.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
## Description
- This PR removes static wait from below
'app/client/cypress/e2e/Regression/ClientSide/**' & replaces with
dynamic checks as needed:
- /AuditLogs/Audit_logs_spec.js
- /Autocomplete/Autocomplete_setters_spec.ts
- /Autocomplete/BracketNotation_AC_spec.ts
- /Autocomplete/Bugs_AC_Spec.ts
- /Autocomplete/JS_AC1_spec.ts
- /Autocomplete/JS_AC2_spec.ts
- /Autocomplete/PropertyPaneSuggestion_spec.ts
- /Autocomplete/autocomplete_spec.ts
- /Branding/Branding_spec.js
- /Debugger/Widget_property_navigation_spec.ts
- Flaky fix to move to TED(from Users) & remove wait in
Widgets/Chart/Chart_Widget_Loading_spec.js
- Dynamic wait add - ClientSide/SetProperty/SetOptions_Spec.ts
#### Type of change
- Script fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
## Testing
>
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [X] Cypress CI runs
## Checklist:
#### QA activity:
- [X] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after Cypress tests were reviewed
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai
-->
## Summary by CodeRabbit
- **Tests**
- Optimized test flows by removing unnecessary wait times, improving
test reliability and execution speed.
- Skipped certain test suites and cases, likely due to ongoing
development or identified issues requiring attention.
- Updated test cases to reflect new functionalities and ensure proper
synchronization during test execution.
- **Chores**
- Adjusted the list of limited tests, refining the focus of the test
suite for more targeted testing.
- **Documentation**
- Updated test descriptions and comments to better reflect their purpose
and the importance of specific actions within the tests.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
## Description
Move from all the manual process of exporting app and filling so many
details, make template upload process a 1 click action.
Current, the step is manual. One has to export the app manually, and
then upload to s3, get the APP URL and page name correct and there is a
lot of room for error. All of this can be automated.
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes https://github.com/appsmithorg/cloud-services/issues/1454
#### Type of change
- Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception)
## Testing
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [ ] 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
- [ ] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [ ] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [ ] My changes generate no new warnings
- [ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [ ] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag
#### QA activity:
- [ ] [Speedbreak
features](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#speedbreakers-)
have been covered
- [ ] Test plan covers all impacted features and [areas of
interest](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#areas-of-interest-)
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by project stakeholders and other
QA members
- [ ] Manually tested functionality on DP
- [ ] We had an implementation alignment call with stakeholders post QA
Round 2
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by SDET/manual QA
- [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after Cypress tests were reviewed
- [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after JUnit tests were reviewed
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai
-->
## Summary by CodeRabbit
- **New Features**
- Introduced a new feature for publishing templates under a "use-case"
category.
- Implemented a simplified endpoint for publishing community templates.
- **Bug Fixes**
- Streamlined the template publishing process to enhance user
experience.
- **Refactor**
- Consolidated template-related data transfer objects to a more generic
naming convention.
- Refactored the publishing methods to align with the new template
categorization.
- **Documentation**
- Updated API documentation to reflect new endpoints and usage patterns.
- **Tests**
- Modified existing tests to accommodate changes in template DTO naming
and publishing logic.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai
-->
## Summary by CodeRabbit
- **Chores**
- Updated the source URL for Docker Compose file download in the cloud
initialization script to a specific GitHub repository for improved
reliability and traceability.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
## Description
There was a misunderstanding between using data/componentData field in
`JS` enabled form fields. Now it's clear and we are using `data` key
value always.
#### Type of change
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
## Testing
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [x] 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
- [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:
- [ ] [Speedbreak
features](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#speedbreakers-)
have been covered
- [ ] Test plan covers all impacted features and [areas of
interest](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#areas-of-interest-)
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by project stakeholders and other
QA members
- [ ] Manually tested functionality on DP
- [ ] We had an implementation alignment call with stakeholders post QA
Round 2
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by SDET/manual QA
- [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after Cypress tests were reviewed
- [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after JUnit tests were reviewed
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai
-->
## Summary by CodeRabbit
- **Refactor**
- Improved the message retrieval process to enhance user experience in
chat features.
- Simplified the content generation logic for better performance and
reliability.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
## Description
PR to add the Appsmith version trait while fetching the flags from user
project.
CS PR: https://github.com/appsmithorg/cloud-services/pull/1503
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/29412
#### 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
## Checklist:
#### Dev activity
- [ ] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] My changes generate no new warnings
- [ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [ ] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag
#### QA activity:
- [ ] [Speedbreak
features](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#speedbreakers-)
have been covered
- [ ] Test plan covers all impacted features and [areas of
interest](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#areas-of-interest-)
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by project stakeholders and other
QA members
- [ ] Manually tested functionality on DP
- [ ] We had an implementation alignment call with stakeholders post QA
Round 2
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by SDET/manual QA
- [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after Cypress tests were reviewed
- [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after JUnit tests were reviewed
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai
-->
## Summary by CodeRabbit
- **New Features**
- Feature flags now consider the app version to provide a more tailored
experience.
- **Refactor**
- Enhanced the feature flag management logic for better performance and
reliability.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
## Description
Here's PR for adding Google AI Gemini model as a data source
integration.
Features:
1. Text generation based on text inputs
Fixes https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/29621
#### Type of change
- New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
## Testing
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [x] Manual
- [x] JUnit
## Checklist:
#### Dev activity
- [x] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [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:
- [ ] [Speedbreak
features](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#speedbreakers-)
have been covered
- [ ] Test plan covers all impacted features and [areas of
interest](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#areas-of-interest-)
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by project stakeholders and other
QA members
- [ ] Manually tested functionality on DP
- [ ] We had an implementation alignment call with stakeholders post QA
Round 2
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by SDET/manual QA
- [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after Cypress tests were reviewed
- [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after JUnit tests were reviewed
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai
-->
## Summary by CodeRabbit
## Summary by CodeRabbit
- **New Features**
- Integrated Google AI plugin for advanced AI functionality.
- Added Google AI plugin to the available plugins.
- Implemented new commands and utilities for Google AI services.
- **Enhancements**
- Expanded plugin constants to include Google AI references.
- Developed a method strategy for Google AI plugin execution.
- **Documentation**
- Updated plugin properties to include Google AI plugin details.
- **Database Changes**
- Performed a database migration to add the Google AI plugin to existing
workspaces.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
## Description
- This PR removes static wait from below:
- ClientSide/ActionExecution/*** & add dynamic waits as needed in below
specs:
- /ActionSelector_JsToNonJSMode_1_spec.ts
- /Error_handling_spec.ts
- /NavigateTo1_spec.ts
- /PostWindowMessage_spec.ts
- /disableJSToggle_spec.ts
- /setInterval_spec.js
- /uiToCode_spec.ts
- ClientSide/AdminSettings/Admin_settings_spec.js
- ClientSide/AppNavigation/**
- /AppNavigationWithMultiplePages_spec.ts
- /AppNavigation_spec.ts
- /Sidebar_spec.ts
- /TopInline_spec.ts
- /TopStacked_spec.ts
#### Type of change
- Script fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
## Testing
>
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [X] Cypress CI runs
## Checklist:
#### QA activity:
- [X] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after Cypress tests were reviewed
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai
-->
## Summary by CodeRabbit
- **Tests**
- Enhanced the reliability of Cypress end-to-end tests by replacing
fixed sleep times with dynamic element visibility checks.
- Streamlined test execution by removing unnecessary wait commands.
- Improved test descriptions and ordering for better clarity and test
suite organization.
- Updated limited test configurations to reflect the current focus of
regression testing.
- **Chores**
- Adjusted the build workflow to optimize the test matrix based on the
type of GitHub event trigger.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
## Description
Refactoring entity types and updating DS action create permission to fix
some bugs on EE
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes # (issue number)
#### Type of change
- Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception)
## Testing
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [x] Manual
- [ ] JUnit
- [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
- [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
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai
-->
## Summary by CodeRabbit
- **Refactor**
- Streamlined entity type naming conventions across the application for
better consistency.
- Enhanced type definitions for improved code clarity and
maintainability.
- Updated function calls to use object parameters with named properties
for better readability.
- **New Features**
- Introduced a new entity type for module instances, expanding the
application's data handling capabilities.
- **Bug Fixes**
- Corrected improper type assertions to ensure accurate entity
recognition and processing.
- **Documentation**
- Added comments to clarify the non-introduction of certain dependencies
in specific components.
- **Style**
- Adjusted import statements to align with the updated naming
conventions.
- **Tests**
- Updated test cases to reflect changes in entity type references and
assertions.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
## Description
We store the autoCommit settings and branch protection settings in the
root application only. As they're present in the
`GitApplicationMetadata`, these fields are included in all the responses
of Application object with empty or default values. This creates
confusion in the client side. This PR does two things:
- It introduces a new `Metadata` view mode. Properties that are
annotated with this mode will be part of the response where controller
method has the same annotation
- Adds a custom getter method for the auto commit config to response a
default value when this field is not present
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes#29584
## Description
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes#29612
Old text: ""Begin with a specific scenario in mind. We'll guide you
through tailoring your app."
New text: "Begin with an app for a specific scenario. We'll guide you
through tailoring your app."
>
#### Media
>
>
>
#### Type of change
> Please delete options that are not relevant.
- 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
- [ ] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [ ] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [ ] My changes generate no new warnings
- [ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [ ] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag
#### QA activity:
- [ ] [Speedbreak
features](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#speedbreakers-)
have been covered
- [ ] Test plan covers all impacted features and [areas of
interest](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#areas-of-interest-)
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by project stakeholders and other
QA members
- [ ] Manually tested functionality on DP
- [ ] We had an implementation alignment call with stakeholders post QA
Round 2
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by SDET/manual QA
- [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after Cypress tests were reviewed
- [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after JUnit tests were reviewed
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai
-->
## Summary by CodeRabbit
- **Documentation**
- Updated the subtitle message for starting from a template to enhance
clarity and user guidance.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
Closes#29421
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai
-->
## Summary by CodeRabbit
- **Style**
- Enhanced the visual contrast in Dark Mode by adjusting background
elevation colors for improved readability.
- Refined Light Mode background colors for better visual hierarchy based
on lightness conditions.
- Updated shadow effects on UI components to provide a more pronounced
depth and focus.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
## Description
> Add generateActionCollectionViewDTO method for overriding purposes
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes # (issue number)
> if no issue exists, please create an issue and ask the maintainers
about this first
#### Type of change
- Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception)
## Testing
> This is a refactor, not a change in functionality, hence no test
cases. Existing test cases should work fine.
#### Test Plan
> Add Testsmith test cases links that relate to this PR
>
>
#### Issues raised during DP testing
> Link issues raised during DP testing for better visiblity and tracking
(copy link from comments dropped on this PR)
>
>
>
## Checklist:
#### Dev activity
- [ ] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [ ] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [ ] My changes generate no new warnings
- [ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [ ] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag
#### QA activity:
- [ ] [Speedbreak
features](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#speedbreakers-)
have been covered
- [ ] Test plan covers all impacted features and [areas of
interest](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#areas-of-interest-)
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by project stakeholders and other
QA members
- [ ] Manually tested functionality on DP
- [ ] We had an implementation alignment call with stakeholders post QA
Round 2
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by SDET/manual QA
- [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after Cypress tests were reviewed
- [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after JUnit tests were reviewed
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai
-->
## Summary by CodeRabbit
- **New Features**
- Introduced a new data transfer object for action collections to
enhance data handling and representation.
- **Refactor**
- Improved the `getActionCollectionsForViewMode` method for better
maintainability and separation of concerns.
- **Documentation**
- Updated public entity declarations to reflect structural changes in
data transfer objects.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
Co-authored-by: Nilesh Sarupriya <20905988+nsarupr@users.noreply.github.com>
## Description
There was a typo in the event name for fork_APPLICATIONTEMPLATE. The
even has been named correctly.
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes # (issue number)
> if no issue exists, please create an issue and ask the maintainers
about this first
>
>
#### Media
> A video or a GIF is preferred. when using Loom, don’t embed because it
looks like it’s a GIF. instead, just link to the video
>
>
#### Type of change
> Please delete options that are not relevant.
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
- New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
- Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing
functionality to not work as expected)
- Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception)
- This change requires a documentation update
>
>
>
## Testing
>
#### How Has This Been Tested?
> Please describe the tests that you ran to verify your changes. Also
list any relevant details for your test configuration.
> Delete anything that is not relevant
- [ ] Manual
- [ ] JUnit
- [ ] Jest
- [ ] Cypress
>
>
#### Test Plan
> Add Testsmith test cases links that relate to this PR
>
>
#### Issues raised during DP testing
> Link issues raised during DP testing for better visiblity and tracking
(copy link from comments dropped on this PR)
>
>
>
## Checklist:
#### Dev activity
- [ ] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [ ] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [ ] My changes generate no new warnings
- [ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [ ] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag
#### QA activity:
- [ ] [Speedbreak
features](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#speedbreakers-)
have been covered
- [ ] Test plan covers all impacted features and [areas of
interest](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#areas-of-interest-)
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by project stakeholders and other
QA members
- [ ] Manually tested functionality on DP
- [ ] We had an implementation alignment call with stakeholders post QA
Round 2
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by SDET/manual QA
- [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after Cypress tests were reviewed
- [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after JUnit tests were reviewed
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai
-->
## Summary by CodeRabbit
- **Bug Fixes**
- Corrected a typo in the analytics event name for forking application
templates.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
Fixes a context switching issue where app sidebar navigation does not
retain the current page canvas
fixes#29614
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai
-->
## Summary by CodeRabbit
- **Refactor**
- Improved the context switching mechanism to include page-specific
data, enhancing the app's responsiveness and accuracy when users switch
between different contexts.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
