de443104f2
17 Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Nidhi
|
de443104f2
|
chore: rm dr ce (#34765)
Co-authored-by: brayn003 <rudra@appsmith.com> |
||
|
Jacques Ikot
|
8d9900598b
|
fix: update newly created queries body with correct widget bindings (#34248)
## Description When multiple blocks of the same type are dropped unto the canvas right after each other, the query body of the newly created query does not update the binding to the latest version of the widgets. ## Solution We have gotten the newlyUpdatedQueries from the block API, then we update the actionConfiguration.body and the jsonPathKeys to match the updated binding name for the block and implement the action in the local state. Fixes #34237 ## Automation /ok-to-test tags="@tag.Widget" ### 🔍 Cypress test results <!-- This is an auto-generated comment: Cypress test results --> > [!TIP] > 🟢 🟢 🟢 All cypress tests have passed! 🎉 🎉 🎉 > Workflow run: <https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/actions/runs/9644500854> > Commit: 562ad23b485afbd0c7b695b0c1aa8e8cc01c94cb > <a href="https://internal.appsmith.com/app/cypress-dashboard/rundetails-65890b3c81d7400d08fa9ee5?branch=master&workflowId=9644500854&attempt=1" target="_blank">Cypress dashboard</a>. > Tags: `@tag.Widget` <!-- end of auto-generated comment: Cypress test results --> ## Communication Should the DevRel and Marketing teams inform users about this change? - [ ] Yes - [x] No <!-- This is an auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai --> ## Summary by CodeRabbit - **New Features** - Enhanced functionality for saving building block widgets to the store. - **Tests** - Updated and added new test cases for pasting building block widgets. - **Bug Fixes** - Fixed issues with the import and usage of action types and selectors in the building block sagas. <!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai --> |
||
|
Ayush Pahwa
|
9d25456cac
|
feat: remote js execution code split (#32853) | ||
|
Ankita Kinger
|
768811621a
|
chore: Using the new function for getting the new name for entities during the copy and move flow (#32611)
## Description Using the new function for getting the new name for entities during the copy and move flow to avoid name conflicts. Fixes [#30786](https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/30786) ## Automation /ok-to-test tags="@tag.All" ### 🔍 Cypress test results <!-- This is an auto-generated comment: Cypress test results --> > [!TIP] > 🟢 🟢 🟢 All cypress tests have passed! 🎉 🎉 🎉 > Workflow run: <https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/actions/runs/8647880292> > Commit: aff834a99b073dde0cdb4921df07c190433e0d53 > Cypress dashboard url: <a href="https://internal.appsmith.com/app/cypress-dashboard/rundetails-65890b3c81d7400d08fa9ee5?branch=master&workflowId=8647880292&attempt=2" target="_blank">Click here!</a> <!-- end of auto-generated comment: Cypress test results --> |
||
|
Ayush Pahwa
|
5fdc0a1ef9
|
feat: workflows assign request on browser (#31159)
## Description We are allowing users to have write workflows assign request queries in the JS object editor for the workflows editor. This means, users should get autocomplete for `appsmith.workflows.assignRequest` and the arguments required should be shown in the autocomplete also. To enable this, following changes have been made 1) Add empty workflows object to the appsmith function type in store and and add ee only type definitions to the `EntityDefinitions` for appsmith namespace. 2) Replace entityFunctions as static variable and use a function which appends EE entity functions. 3) Added types for ee only functions 4) Retain the `isMainJsObject` flag for the js file when updates happen. #### PR fixes following issue(s) Fixes # (issue number) #### 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 - [ ] 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 new autocomplete definitions for enhanced code editor suggestions. - Added support for categorizing entities in the Explorer panel using `GROUP_TYPES` for improved organization and navigation. - **Refactor** - Updated the action helpers and reducers to support new properties and ensure state consistency. - Improved the structure for autocomplete helper functions, facilitating easier extension and maintenance. - **Chores** - Established foundational code for future development with empty enums and placeholder functions. <!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai --> |
||
|
Ankita Kinger
|
410a55cf3c
|
fix: Refactoring code to fix a couple of issues related to modules on EE (#29843)
## Description Refactoring code to fix a couple of issues related to modules on EE #### PR fixes following issue(s) Fixes [#29842](https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/29842) [#29445](https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/29445) #### Type of change - Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue) ## 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 - [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas - [x] 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 - [ ] 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 interface for improved action context handling. - Added functionality to create API actions based on the editor type. - Implemented a new hook for retrieving parent entity information in the datasource editor. - **Refactor** - Updated various components to utilize the new `ActionParentEntityTypeInterface`. - Enhanced reducer logic for better handling of action configurations. - Streamlined entity exports and imports for consistency. - **Bug Fixes** - Fixed redirection logic in the Datasource Blank State component for a smoother user experience. - **Chores** - Removed unused event listeners from sagas to optimize performance. <!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai --> |
||
|
Ankita Kinger
|
1c6f026970
|
chore: Refactor JS action entity button checks (#29774)
## Description Refactoring JS action entity button checks #### PR fixes following issue(s) Fixes [#29762](https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/29762) #### 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 - **Refactor** - Simplified display logic for JavaScript collections by removing unused properties. - **Bug Fixes** - Corrected the conditional display of context menus and edit icons in the JavaScript editor. - **Style** - Updated user interface elements to reflect changes in display properties. <!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai --> |
||
|
Ankita Kinger
|
235122e7e3
|
chore: Refactoring API wiring for actions and JS actions to support private entity renaming on EE (#29763)
## Description Refactoring API wiring for actions and JS actions to support private entity renaming on EE. Also handles a couple of other issues (refer the issue attached below) #### PR fixes following issue(s) Fixes [#29762](https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/29762) #### 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** - Enhanced action and JS object naming capabilities with new context-aware options. - Added support for organizing actions and JS objects within modules. - **Improvements** - Streamlined the process of renaming actions and JS objects to be more intuitive and context-sensitive. - **Refactor** - Updated internal type declarations for consistency and future extensibility. - **User Interface** - Improved UI elements to reflect the new naming and organizational features for actions and JS objects. - **Bug Fixes** - Corrected logic to ensure proper handling of the `isPublic` flag within JS collections. <!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai --> |
||
|
ashit-rath
|
1fbfb28abf
|
chore: reset entities reducers on editor unmount (#29565)
## Description Reset widgets, actions and jsCollection on application unmount. This is to make sure no entities get into workflows or modules editor #### PR fixes following issue(s) PR for https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith-ee/pull/3138 #### 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 - [ ] 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 a feature to reset the editor to its initial state across various components. - **Refactor** - Enhanced state management to ensure a consistent reset behavior. - **Chores** - Updated internal state handling to improve performance and reliability. <!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai --> |
||
|
Ankita Kinger
|
cf6c77194b
|
chore: Refactoring entity types and updating DS action create permission to fix some bugs on EE (#29573)
## 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 --> |
||
|
ashit-rath
|
c281600ea7
|
chore: refactor create jsobject under modules (#29555)
## Description Refactor to create js objects for modules #### PR fixes following issue(s) PR for https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith-ee/pull/3095 #### 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 <!-- This is an auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai --> ## Summary by CodeRabbit - **Refactor** - Updated import paths for `JSCollectionData` and related types across various files to reflect a change in the file structure or module resolution strategy. - Exported `initialState` and `handlers` from `jsActionsReducer` to align with updated code organization. - **New Features** - Added a new entry `JSModules` to the `entitySections` object in `editorContextReducer.ts` to enhance editor context management. - **Bug Fixes** - Adjusted the `createDummyJSCollectionActions` function to include `additionalParams` and `variables` for improved action creation and initialization. - **Documentation** - No visible changes to end-user documentation in this pull request. - **Style** - No style-related changes affecting end-users in this pull request. - **Tests** - No test-related changes affecting end-users in this pull request. - **Chores** - No chore-related changes affecting end-users in this pull request. - **Revert** - No reverts affecting end-users in this pull request. <!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai --> |
||
|
ashit-rath
|
dea2fd736c
|
chore: action response view refactor (#29031)
## Description Refactor PR for action response view and action execution saga #### PR fixes following issue(s) Refactor PR for https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith-ee/pull/2936 #### 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 --------- Co-authored-by: Rishabh-Rathod <rishabh.rathod@appsmith.com> |
||
|
Abhinav Jha
|
fce5524aa8
|
chore: Add observer to LayoutElements (#27993)
## Description - Create a hook based on the `LayoutElementPositionsObserver` and use it in `AnvilFlexComponent` such that all widgets in Anvil have their positions registered in the `LayoutElementPositionsReducer` - Do the same for `layouts` in Anvil. Added in the `FlexLayout` component. #### PR fixes following issue(s) Fixes #26947 Fixes #27287 #### Type of change - New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality) |
||
|
Ankita Kinger
|
b9bc00e1da
|
chore: Refactoring editor app name component for modules (#28055)
## Description Refactoring editor app name component for modules #### PR fixes following issue(s) Fixes [#26163](https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/26163) #### 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 |
||
|
rahulramesha
|
8a35e05923
|
chore: code changes for widget position observer and widget name on canvas (#27367)
## 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 #26945 Fixes #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> |
||
|
Ankita Kinger
|
dd347c051f
|
chore: Splitting uiReducers to support modules on EE (#27580)
## 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 |
||
|
Ankita Kinger
|
1012c43ee7
|
chore: Splitting entities reducer for supporting more reducers on EE (#27560)
## 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 |