Added checks for scheduled changes
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai
-->
## Summary by CodeRabbit
- **Refactor**
- Updated the workflow to trigger certain actions on a scheduled basis
as well as other specified events.
- **Documentation**
- No changes in public API documentation required.
- **Chores**
- Triage process remains unchanged.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai
-->
## Summary by CodeRabbit
- **Chores**
- Updated the build process to use a new self-hosted deployment runner
with enhanced resources.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
## Description
added changes to skip server incase of no changes
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
#### Type of change
- New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
## 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
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai
-->
## Summary by CodeRabbit
- **Chores**
- Improved the efficiency of the build process by only running
server-related jobs when there are changes in the server folder.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
## Description
> Added client-unit-tests, server-unit-tests in package-master step
#### Type of change
- Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception)
## Testing
> running tbp on the branch
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [ ] 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 the build process to require both client and server unit tests
to pass before packaging.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
Adding logs to debug ci-test-result
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai
-->
## Summary by CodeRabbit
- **Refactor**
- Improved error handling and logging in integration test workflows.
- **Documentation**
- Fixed typographical error in the name of the test workflow.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
## Description
- This PR removed static wait from spec - API_with_List_Widget_spec
- Git/GitSync/GitSyncedApps_spec.js (fixes for EE flakyness - WIP -
still failing in chrome, pass in electron)
- Remove wait from OpenPaneAndChangeThemeColors() & added n/w check
- Upgrading Cypress from 13.3 to 13.6
- Flaky fix:
- ClientSide/Widgets/Text/Text2_Spec.ts
- ClientSide/Widgets/Select/Select2_Spec.ts
- cypress/e2e/Regression/ClientSide/JSLibrary/Library_spec.ts
- /ClientSide/Git/GitWithJSLibrary/GitwithCustomJSLibrary_spec.js
#### 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
## Summary by CodeRabbit
- **New Features**
- Enhanced Git synchronization capabilities with improved user interface
interactions.
- Streamlined navigation back to the editor from deployment mode.
- Implemented more robust table loading checks to ensure data is
properly displayed.
- **Bug Fixes**
- Fixed issues with element presence assertions to improve test
reliability.
- Addressed the visibility of certain UI elements to ensure they appear
as expected.
- **Tests**
- Updated end-to-end test scripts to reflect new interactions and
assertions.
- Added a new test file `GitSyncedApps_spec.js` to cover Git-synced
applications.
- Removed outdated test file `Fork_Template_spec.js`.
- **Refactor**
- Improved method calls for querying and interacting with elements to
enhance test stability.
- Optimized wait conditions for element visibility to reduce flakiness
in tests.
- **Chores**
- Adjusted the GitHub Actions workflow for client-server build to refine
output for matrix counts.
- Updated CI test workflow to incorporate Electron setup and remove
Chrome setup steps.
- **Documentation**
- Included comments to explain the rationale behind certain timeout
values and method changes.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
## Description
- Added logic to handle the runner count based on the tags
#### Type of change
- Workflow files
## Testing
- Workflow run
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai
-->
## Summary by CodeRabbit
- **New Features**
- Introduced a `tag-check` job to validate the presence of tags in
workflow commands.
- Workflows now comment on PRs with documentation links for tags when
tags are missing.
- **Enhancements**
- Enhanced CI workflows to conditionally run jobs based on tag presence.
- Added matrix inputs to improve job configuration flexibility.
- **Documentation**
- Added comments to PRs with links to workflow runs when tags are
specified.
- **Refactor**
- Centralized tag and matrix setup across multiple workflows for
consistency.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
## Description
> Added schedule event name in package-release and master steps to run
those on scheduled cron
#### Type of change
- Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception)
## Testing
> running tbp manually in the branch
#### 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
## 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 workflow to trigger certain job steps on a scheduled basis.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
Server build cache
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai
-->
## Summary by CodeRabbit
- **Chores**
- Improved the caching process for release builds to enhance the
efficiency of our deployment workflows.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
fix server build added missing quotes
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai
-->
## Summary by CodeRabbit
- **Chores**
- Improved the handling of user information in the automated server
build process to ensure compatibility with values containing spaces.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
## Description
Added cache for server
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
#### Media
#### Type of change
- New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
## 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
- [x] PR is being merged under a feature flag
#### QA activity:
- [ ] [Speedbreak
features](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#speedbreakers-)
have been covered
- [ ] Test plan covers all impacted features and [areas of
interest](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#areas-of-interest-)
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by project stakeholders and other
QA members
- [ ] Manually tested functionality on DP
- [ ] We had an implementation alignment call with stakeholders post QA
Round 2
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by SDET/manual QA
- [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after Cypress tests were reviewed
- [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after JUnit tests were reviewed
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai
-->
## Summary by CodeRabbit
- **New Features**
- Implemented caching for release builds to enhance efficiency and speed
up the deployment process.
- **Chores**
- Updated build workflow with additional steps for caching operations.
- **Documentation**
- Confirmed no changes to public API documentation are needed as this
update does not alter exported entities.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
## Description
- Skipping TBD for every push on release branch
- TBD will run once a day on the scheduled cron
- People can still run TBD on-demand
#### Type of change
- Workflow Change
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai
-->
## Summary by CodeRabbit
- **Chores**
- Updated the CI/CD workflow to trigger Docker image builds on pushes to
the "master" branch instead of the "release" branch.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
## 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 -->
## Description
- Allowing static split of cypress specs in CI runs.
- Optimised the spec allocation by considering the duration history for
each spec.
- Updated the affecting workflows to utilise the static split
#### Type of change
- Workflows
- Cypress-split pugin
## Testing
- Workflow run
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai
-->
## Summary by CodeRabbit
- **New Features**
- Introduced a new environment variable to optimize test resource
allocation during CI/CD processes.
- Enhanced Cypress testing with dynamic and static test splitting
strategies.
- **Refactor**
- Refactored Cypress plugin configuration to support conditional test
splitting based on the environment variable.
- **Chores**
- Updated GitHub Actions workflows to include new environment variables
for test runs.
- **Documentation**
- Updated internal documentation to reflect changes in test setup and
execution strategies.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
## Description
> Added 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
## Description
Currently, when we run the server build without tests, we still try to
check the cache for run-result, but as the cache is not present during
the first run, where we just build the server, and on the success of the
workflow, actions/cache create the cache with the specified key,
Which is creating an issue while we try to save the actual run-result
cache when we run the tests in server-unit-tests.
Solution :
- Added a condition to check the cache present only while running tests
#### Type of change
- Workflow changes (server-build.yml)
## Testing
- Workflow run
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai
-->
## Summary by CodeRabbit
- **Refactor**
- Updated the server build process to conditionally skip certain steps
based on user input.
- **Chores**
- Improved automation in the build workflow to enhance efficiency.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
## Description
- Added the required logic to rerun only the failed tests in JUnit in
server-build.yml
- Separated the build and test steps to accommodate our requirements
#### Type of change
- Workflow changes (server-build.yml)
## Testing
- [x] [Workflow
run](https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/actions/runs/7164444771?pr=29469)
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai
-->
## Summary by CodeRabbit
- **Documentation**
- Enhanced comments for clarity in test methods related to application
creation, duplication, and cloning.
- Updated comments to reflect changes in test assertions for application
visibility and user anonymity.
- **Tests**
- Modified assertions in `ActionServiceCE_Test` to align with expected
behavior in view mode.
- Added new assertions and comments in `ApplicationServiceCETest` to
improve test coverage and documentation.
- **Chores**
- Improved the server build workflow with better caching and error
handling mechanisms.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
Also modifying server-build to store the failed builds as an artifact that can be used later
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai
-->
## Summary by CodeRabbit
- **New Features**
- Implemented a new step in the build process to upload reports for
failed tests, enhancing visibility into test failures during continuous
integration.
- **Bug Fixes**
- Adjusted test assertions in `AnalyticsServiceCEImplTest` to correctly
reflect the expected behavior.
- Modified the assertion logic in `ApplicationServiceCETest` to ensure
the test aligns with the intended application validation process.
- **Documentation**
- No user-facing documentation changes in this release.
- **Refactor**
- Introduced `TestResultLoggerExtension` to improve test failure logging
and reporting.
- **Tests**
- Enabled auto-detection of JUnit Jupiter extensions to streamline the
testing framework setup.
- **Chores**
- No significant chores affecting end-users in this release.
- **Revert**
- No reverts in this release.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
Leveraging the library
[cypress-grep](https://github.com/cypress-io/cypress/tree/develop/npm/grep).
Using this we can tag testcases with relevant tags and use it to run
specific testcases.
**Command to run in local:**
`CYPRESS_grepTags=@tag.Binding,@tag.Git npx cypress run
`
Pass the tags to CYPRESS_grepTags argument and only the test cases which
has the
tags passed will be picked to run. ex `@tag.Binding and @tag.Git` are
the tag names here.
**Tags can be added in the description on the test case like**
`{ tags: ["@tag.Datasource"] }` for a single tag
`{ tags: ["@tag.Datasource", "@tag.Git"] }` for multiple tags
**How to run In CI**
Single Tag - `/ok-to-test tags=@tag.Binding`
Multiple tag - `/ok-to-test tags=@tag.Binding,@tag.Git`
**TODOs in the next release:**
- [ ] Add tags.ts file with all needed tags
- [ ] Add tags to remaining spec files.
- [ ] Fail the PR run if tags added are not from tag.ts and post the
message on the same
#### Type of change
- Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception)
- This change requires a documentation update
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [x] Manual
- [ ] JUnit
- [ ] Jest
- [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
- [x] My changes generate no new warnings
- [x] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [ ] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag
#### QA activity:
- [x] [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
- [x] 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**
- Added a search functionality to the app.
- **Enhancements**
- Integrated search bar at the top of the `Hero` component and a
`Search` component to the `App` component.
- Added styles for the search bar.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
---------
Co-authored-by: Arpit Mohan <arpit@appsmith.com>
## Description
- Now saving the docker image in cache instead of uploading it as an
artefact to save time
#### Type of change
- Workflow changes
## Testing
- Workflow run
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai
-->
## Summary by CodeRabbit
- **Chores**
- Updated CI workflows to use GitHub Actions cache for Docker images
instead of uploading to artifacts.
- Removed `restore-keys` from Yarn dependency caching for a more
streamlined caching process.
- Improved conditions for Docker image caching to enhance CI efficiency.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
Full git history is required by the chromatic plugin to work properly &
publish the site. Hence adding `fetch-depth: 0` back into the Chromatic
workflow
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai
-->
## Summary by CodeRabbit
- **Chores**
- Updated GitHub Actions workflows to fetch the full Git history for
more accurate CI/CD operations.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
## Description
- This PR makes changes to run the Client & Server unit tests in
parallel to Cypress for TBP workflow
- Removes invalid input restore-keys, adding cache-hit
- Remove save cache from /workflows/client-unit-tests.yml
- Making ci-test, client-unit-tests, server-unit-tests mandatory for
ci-test-result
#### Type of change
- Yml file update (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
## Testing
>
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- TBP workflow run
## Checklist:
#### QA activity:
- [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after workflow run & tests were
identified to run parallel to cypress
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai
-->
## Summary by CodeRabbit
- **Refactor**
- Updated GitHub Actions workflows to use the latest version of
`actions/checkout`.
- Improved CI/CD pipeline by adding conditional job definitions for
server and client unit tests.
- Enhanced workflow logic to differentiate between pull request and
branch push triggers for more accurate code checkouts.
- Streamlined caching strategy by removing `restore-keys` configuration
for better dependency management during builds.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
RTS is already getting the version from `info.json`.
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai
-->
## Summary by CodeRabbit
- **Chores**
- Streamlined the build process by removing unnecessary versioning
steps.
- **Refactor**
- Simplified the Docker image tagging process during builds.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
This code is duplicated from generate_info_json.sh script, but that's
temporary. We'll be moving towards not having the version computation in
the workflows at all, and all components getting version information
from `info.json` alone. Essentially treating `info.json` as the source
of truth for this.
> 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
- **Refactor**
- Adjusted indentation in the build workflow for improved readability
and consistency.
- **Documentation**
- No alterations to exported entities' declarations.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
---------
Co-authored-by: Arpit Mohan <mohanarpit@users.noreply.github.com>
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai
-->
## Summary by CodeRabbit
- **Chores**
- Updated GitHub Actions workflows to use `actions/checkout@v4` for
improved performance and reliability.
- Removed `fetch-depth` parameter to simplify checkout steps across
various workflows.
- Standardized quote usage for consistency in workflow files.
- **Documentation**
- Adjusted formatting and descriptions in workflow files for better
clarity and readability.
- **Refactor**
- Aligned multiple workflow files to follow a consistent structure and
naming convention.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
fetch-depth 0 causes the Github workflow to checkout the entire Git
history. This is not required. We only need to check out the head of the
commit. By default, actions/checkout has fetch-depth=1, hence removing
it from the workflow completely for simplicity.
## Summary by CodeRabbit
- **Chores**
- Updated `umani/changed-files` action to v4.1.0 across various workflow
files.
- Updated `peter-evans/create-or-update-comment` action to v3 in
multiple workflow files.
- Minor adjustments to workflow syntax for consistency and accuracy.
- **Documentation**
- Corrected URLs in Slack notification messages to ensure accuracy.
- **Refactor**
- Removed redundant job configurations and steps related to caching and
storing run results.
- Streamlined environment variable usage by sourcing values from
secrets.
- **Style**
- Standardized quote usage in workflow files for file matching patterns.
- **Bug Fixes**
- Fixed URLs in echo statements within `test-build-docker-image.yml` to
point to the correct "cypress-dashboard" path segment.
- Updated `slack_color` and `slack_icon` values to better reflect
success and failure states in notifications.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
## Description
If the user types `ok-to-test tags=Git`, Cypress should only run the
specs marked with the Git tag
Related to #28943
#### Type of change
- New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
## Testing
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [ ] Manual
- [ ] JUnit
- [ ] Jest
- [ ] Cypress
#### 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
