ea4079da4b
15897 Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Shrikant Sharat Kandula
|
ea4079da4b | test: Route tests for frame ancestors config | ||
|
Apeksha Bhosale
|
ad8c0d8f82
|
fix: added analytics function to execute js function on js editor (#29733)
## Description separated analytics function to get correct data for action execution. This was creating problem inside package editor as application data was not present. #### 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** - Integrated analytics tracking for action execution to enhance insights into user interactions with plugins. - **Refactor** - Streamlined event logging in action execution by consolidating analytics data into a single object. <!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai --> |
||
|
sharanya-appsmith
|
8d5b389f38
|
ci: added event_name schedule in client-build, rts-build, ci-test-custom-script to run them in scheduled run as well (#29724)
## Description > added event_name schedule in client-build and rts-build to run them in scheduled run as well #### Type of change - Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception) > > ## Testing > running TBP workflow to ensure nothing is impacted. #### How Has This Been Tested? - [x] TBP Run ## 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 - **Chores** - Updated build workflows to trigger on scheduled events. <!-- 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 --> |
||
|
Nilansh Bansal
|
10005794dd
|
feat: http2 support for REST API and GraphQL (#29304)
## Description > This PR adds a selection dropdown for the HTTP Version in the REST API and GraphQL plugins. #### PR fixes following issue(s) Fixes #28226 #### Type of change - New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality) ## Testing #### How Has This Been Tested? > Please describe the tests that you ran to verify your changes. Also list any relevant details for your test configuration. > Delete anything that is not relevant - [x] Manual - [ ] JUnit - [ ] Jest - [ ] Cypress > > #### Test Plan > Add Testsmith test cases links that relate to this PR > > #### Issues raised during DP testing > Link issues raised during DP testing for better visiblity and tracking (copy link from comments dropped on this PR) > > > ## Checklist: #### Dev activity - [x] My code follows the style guidelines of this project - [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code - [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 - **New Features** - Introduced support for selecting different HTTP protocol versions when configuring APIs. - **Enhancements** - Improved user interface for API configuration with a new dropdown to select HTTP protocol versions. - **Bug Fixes** - Fixed an issue to ensure that the API configuration now correctly displays protocol labels in dropdown menus. - **Documentation** - Added user-friendly placeholders and titles for secure and fast API connection settings. - **Refactor** - Enhanced internal methods to support the selection of HTTP protocol versions for API actions. <!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai --> --------- Co-authored-by: Aman Agarwal <aman@appsmith.com> |
||
|
Valera Melnikov
|
862cdded5a
|
chore: add shadow elevation color tokens (#29708)
Fixes: #29702 |
||
|
Nayan
|
cdfef0c546
|
chore: Removed unnecessary error log during auto commit (#29711) | ||
|
Ankita Kinger
|
cc61ca4c47
|
chore: Refactoring queries/JS section on entity explorer to support private entities on packages (#29703)
## 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 --> |
||
|
Jacques Ikot
|
9a38452fe5
|
fix: move canvas starter datasource prompt from entity explorer to sidebar button (#29559)
## 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 --> |
||
|
sharanya-appsmith
|
97d5e60842
|
test: Cypress - tags added - @tag.Workspace, @tag.Datasource, @tag.JS, @tag.PropertyPane (#29704)
## 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 -->
|
||
|
sharanya-appsmith
|
58a8d4334e
|
test: Cypress - added tags - @tag.Radio, @tag.Rating, @tag.TextEditor, @tag.PhoneInput, @tag.IconButton, @tag.Maps, @tag.MenuButton, @tag.Progress, @tag.Statbox (#29693)
## 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 --> |
||
|
sharanya-appsmith
|
31a091efdb
|
test: Cypress - added tags - @tag.Filepicker, @tag.Form, @tag.Iframe, @tag.Image, @tag.Input (#29689)
## 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 -->
|
||
|
sharanya-appsmith
|
59f4d9d422
|
test: Cypress - added tags - @tag.JS, @tag.Perf, @tag.Settings, @tag.PropertyPane, @tag.Theme (#29682)
## 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 --> |
||
|
sharanya-appsmith
|
78514dcbac
|
test: Cypress - tag - @tag.MobileResponsive (#29678)
## 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 --> |
||
|
Saroj
|
cf53dbfb23
|
ci: Allow static split of cypress specs (#29653)
## 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 --> |
||
|
sharanya-appsmith
|
0b4fe0dd10
|
test: Cypress - added tags - @tag.JSONForm, @tag.List, @tag.Widget (#29690)
## 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 --> |
||
|
sharanya-appsmith
|
bae69cddb4
|
test: Cypress - @tag.Video, @tag.Container, @tag.Switch, @tag.Slider, @tag.Tab, @tag.Table, @tag.Select (#29698)
## 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 --> |
||
|
sharanya-appsmith
|
f5fdec13f6
|
test: Cypress - added tags - @tag.Audio, @tag.Button, @tag.Camera, @tag.Chart and @tag.Widget (#29685)
## 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 --> |
||
|
sharanya-appsmith
|
d8a818686e
|
test: Cypress - added tags - @tag.Settings, @tag.Binding (#29684)
## 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 --> |
||
|
sharanya-appsmith
|
2802efcbb2
|
test: Cypress - added tags - @tag.IDE, @tag.JS (#29674)
## 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 --> |
||
|
sharanya-appsmith
|
3d1828de2a
|
test: Cypress - added @tag.Checkbox, @tag.Scanner, @tag.Datepicker, @tag.DocumentViewer, @tag.CurrencyInput, @tag.Dropdown (#29687)
## 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 |
||
|
Valera Melnikov
|
f793fb58f0
|
fix: put wds theme provider under feature flag (#29659)
## Description Put WDS theme provider under the feature flag so that WDS don't affect prod anymore. Also fix this  **How it look like now** WDS enabled   WDS disabled   <!-- This is an auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai --> ## Summary by CodeRabbit - **Refactor** - Improved feature flag naming for clarity in the app viewer settings. - Simplified theme background color application in the editor canvas. - Centralized rendering logic for editor canvas components for better maintainability. - **Style** - Streamlined the application of themes to ensure consistent background colors across the platform. <!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai --> |
||
|
Ayush Pahwa
|
848afaf878
|
feat: workflows create js object code split (#29627)
Co-authored-by: Druthi Polisetty <druthi@appsmith.com> Co-authored-by: Ankita Kinger <ankita@appsmith.com> Co-authored-by: Hetu Nandu <hetunandu@gmail.com> |
||
|
Hetu Nandu
|
88a50e58d2
|
chore: Editor Pane Segments completion (#29688)
Completes the List and Add states of Queries / JS / UI of Page Pane Segments fixes #29081 fixes #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 --> |
||
|
subratadeypappu
|
b601b70279
|
chore: Refactor for crud of JS module (#29681)
> 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 --> |
||
|
sharanya-appsmith
|
a411e27b46
|
test: Cypress - added tag- @tag.Binding (#29679)
## 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 --> |
||
|
sharanya-appsmith
|
9aa94a2746
|
test: Cypress - added tag - @tag.AutoHeight, @tag.IDE (#29670)
## 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 --> |
||
|
Apeksha Bhosale
|
a436d81aea
|
chore: split for overlay changes on EE to accommodate module instance (#29647)
## 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 --> |
||
|
sharanya-appsmith
|
87a928a168
|
test: Cypess - added tags - @tag.Fork, @tag.Git (#29672)
## 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 --> |
||
|
Shrikant Sharat Kandula
|
e6ebfbaea1
|
fix: Remove Server header and allow all on port 80 (#29585)
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. |
||
|
Nidhi
|
148c958db8
|
ci: Remove conflict introduced for test (#29666) | ||
|
Nidhi
|
acddbc1920
|
test: introduce conflict (#29665) | ||
|
sharanya-appsmith
|
3495346965
|
ci: Added cron at 6 am ist on tbp ce workflow (#29643)
## 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 |
||
|
sharanya-appsmith
|
d0de9c2fbe
|
test: Cypress - added tags - @tag.Git, @tag.JS, @tag.Binding, @tag.Datasource, @tag.ImportExport (#29516)
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 --> |
||
|
Aishwarya-U-R
|
b7b2e49966
|
test: Cypress | Replace static with Dynamic waits - Part IV (#29641)
## 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 -->
|
||
|
Anagh Hegde
|
681ad2e6d1
|
chore: template upload process revamping (#29626)
## 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 --> |
||
|
Goutham Pratapa
|
e21583e8fa
|
skip running TBD for release (#29244) | ||
|
Goutham Pratapa
|
f3fce9f78a
|
fix: move ansible playbooks to default appsmith-ee (#29554)
<!-- 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 --> |
||
|
Nirmal Sarswat
|
9b1f38350a
|
fix: using data key for messages in AI plugins (#29639)
## 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 --> |
||
|
Nayan
|
fba544d256
|
chore: Handled null pointer exception when updated resources is empty (#29630)
## Description Added a null check in import application flow. #### PR fixes following issue(s) Fixes #29629 |
||
|
Nayan
|
97019cc6b4
|
chore: Removed unnecessary annotations (#29619) | ||
|
Abhijeet
|
a9a7e193e8
|
feat: Add Appsmith version to fetch user feature flags request (#29603)
## 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 --> |
||
|
Nirmal Sarswat
|
b4441969d0
|
feat: Google AI integration (#29620)
## 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 --> |
||
|
Aishwarya-U-R
|
c1487a6125
|
test: Cypress | Replace static with Dynamic waits - Part III (#29582)
## 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 -->
|
||
|
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 --> |
||
|
Nayan
|
eedd3fb857
|
chore: Hide auto commit and branch protection settings in public APIs (#29586)
## 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 |
||
|
Rohan Arthur
|
c9e89b42c9
|
fix: copy change for explanation text on start-with-template option (#29616)
## 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 --> |
||
|
vadim
|
db493eb6a9
|
chore: WDS elevation colors refinement (#29618)
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 --> |
||
|
Nilesh Sarupriya
|
69c6875a9a
|
chore: add generate view dto method for overriding (#29595)
## 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> |
||
|
Jacques Ikot
|
93b24a145a
|
fix: update event name for template fork from canvas starter templates (#29622)
## 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 --> |