## Description
- Enabled the rule `@typescript-eslint/no-explicit-any`
- Suppressed errors with comment
```
// TODO: Fix this the next time the file is edited
// eslint-disable-next-line @typescript-eslint/no-explicit-any
```
Fixes#35308
## Automation
/ok-to-test tags="@tag.All"
### 🔍 Cypress test results
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment: Cypress test results -->
> [!TIP]
> 🟢🟢🟢 All cypress tests have passed! 🎉🎉🎉
> Workflow run:
<https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/actions/runs/10181176984>
> Commit: 7fc604e24fa234da7ab2ff56e0b1c715268796ee
> <a
href="https://internal.appsmith.com/app/cypress-dashboard/rundetails-65890b3c81d7400d08fa9ee5?branch=master&workflowId=10181176984&attempt=2"
target="_blank">Cypress dashboard</a>.
> Tags: `@tag.All`
> Spec:
> <hr>Wed, 31 Jul 2024 15:00:45 UTC
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: Cypress test results -->
## Communication
Should the DevRel and Marketing teams inform users about this change?
- [ ] Yes
- [x] No
## Description
Solves scenarios where open tabs data was lost on page switches
Fixes#33032
Change the data structure of the tabs to now keep account different tabs
for each page instead of just one page at a time. Also removed tabs
state for focus retention.
Fixes#33045
Handles removing and navigating post move of JS and Queries to avoid
being in a bad state
## Automation
/ok-to-test tags="@tag.All"
### 🔍 Cypress test results
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment: Cypress test results -->
> [!TIP]
> 🟢🟢🟢 All cypress tests have passed! 🎉🎉🎉
> Workflow run:
<https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/actions/runs/9000257489>
> Commit: b39c8d7cca16ea739457f277290c29317317cef3
> Cypress dashboard url: <a
href="https://internal.appsmith.com/app/cypress-dashboard/rundetails-65890b3c81d7400d08fa9ee5?branch=master&workflowId=9000257489&attempt=2"
target="_blank">Click here!</a>
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: Cypress test results -->
## Communication
Should the DevRel and Marketing teams inform users about this change?
- [ ] Yes
- [x] No
## Description
This PR has changed the logic of next item selection after deleting an
item or removing a tab.
The new logic is
1. If there is no more tabs left after removal of current item, navigate
to first item from all items list
2. If all items list is empty, navigate to add
3. If the removed tab is not currently selected, no redirection required
just close the tab
4. If removed tab is in 0th position, redirect to current tab + 1
5. if removed tab is not in 0th position, redirect to tab - 1
Fixes#32634
## Automation
/ok-to-test tags="@tag.Sanity, @tag.IDE"
### 🔍 Cypress test results
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment: Cypress test results -->
> [!CAUTION]
> 🔴🔴🔴 Some tests have failed.
> Workflow run:
<https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/actions/runs/8748435770>
> Commit: e3e9b51cc9a708fadf4d1b9f0e426b63e9f3c10a
> Cypress dashboard: <a
href="https://internal.appsmith.com/app/cypress-dashboard/rundetails-65890b3c81d7400d08fa9ee5?branch=master&workflowId=8748435770&attempt=2&selectiontype=test&testsstatus=failed&specsstatus=fail"
target="_blank"> Click here!</a>
> The following are new failures, please fix them before merging the PR:
<ol>
> <li>cypress/e2e/Regression/ClientSide/ExplorerTests/Hide_Page_spec.js
> <li>cypress/e2e/Regression/ClientSide/ExplorerTests/Page_Load_Spec.js
</ol>
> To know the list of identified flaky tests - <a
href="https://internal.appsmith.com/app/cypress-dashboard/identified-flaky-tests-65890b3c81d7400d08fa9ee3?branch=master"
target="_blank">Refer here</a>
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: Cypress test results -->
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai
-->
## Summary by CodeRabbit
- **New Features**
- Improved the closing functionality for JavaScript and query action
tabs in the IDE, enhancing user experience with smoother tab management.
- **Refactor**
- Aligned sagas and reducers with new action types for improved handling
of tab closures and entity redirects within the IDE.
- **Tests**
- Updated test cases to reflect changes in IDE saga functions and logic,
ensuring reliability and consistency in behavior.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
## Description
This PR have following changes,
- Added close button and close functionality for tabs
- Removed 5 tabs limit and added scroll for tabs
Fixes#32407
## Automation
/ok-to-test tags="@tag.Sanity, @tag.IDE"
### 🔍 Cypress test results
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment: Cypress test results -->
> [!TIP]
> 🟢🟢🟢 All cypress tests have passed! 🎉🎉🎉
> Workflow run:
<https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/actions/runs/8683747982>
> Commit: d87357251bcb3a6f23942d17e548867882194295
> Cypress dashboard url: <a
href="https://internal.appsmith.com/app/cypress-dashboard/rundetails-65890b3c81d7400d08fa9ee5?branch=master&workflowId=8683747982&attempt=1"
target="_blank">Click here!</a>
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: Cypress test results -->
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai
-->
## Summary by CodeRabbit
- **New Features**
- Enhanced tab management in the IDE with new functionalities to close
and remove JavaScript and query action tabs.
- Improved user interaction within the editor interface by adding scroll
behavior and a close button for each tab.
- **Bug Fixes**
- Fixed issues related to tab rendering and close button behavior in the
IDE, ensuring smoother user experience.
- **Tests**
- Added comprehensive tests for the new features and fixes in the IDE's
tab management system.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
## Description
When we create an entity (JS or Query or API), the name is always
generated based the lookup of only that particular type. This leads to
name clash if a different entity has the same name format.
Example:
If a js object has the name "Query1" then if a query is being created;
the generated name would be "Query1" and it would fail to create as
there is a name clash.
To avoid this; all entities are considered to generate name.
This PR also makes sure that the name generation logic is done at a
central place (saga) rather than the creator of the entity. This avoid
code duplication.
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
PR for https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith-ee/pull/3306
> 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.
- 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**
- Introduced a new action creation process with enhanced naming
conventions.
- Implemented a new selector to generate entity names based on existing
entities.
- **Improvements**
- Streamlined action creation flow by integrating new helper functions.
- **Refactor**
- Updated various components to utilize the new entity naming selector.
- Consolidated action creation logic across different parts of the
application.
- **Bug Fixes**
- Fixed inconsistencies in action naming during the creation of APIs and
Queries.
- **Code Cleanup**
- Removed unused code and imports related to deprecated naming
utilities.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
## Description
Reverted consolidated api changes and also some CE related changes to
make it compatible with EE.
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Reverts #29650 & #29939
#### Type of change
- Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception)
>
>
>
## Testing
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [ ] Manual
- [ ] JUnit
- [ ] Jest
- [x ] 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**
- Enhanced the reliability and efficiency of Cypress e2e tests by
adjusting wait conditions and assertions.
- Simplified network request handling across various test cases.
- Updated test logic to align with changes in application data structure
and network requests.
- **Tests**
- Improved test stability for application import/export, Git sync, page
load behavior, and widget interactions.
- Refined mobile responsiveness tests to accurately validate layout
conversions and autofill behaviors.
- **Chores**
- Removed deprecated feature flags and code related to consolidated page
load functionality.
- Cleaned up unused parameters and simplified action payloads in Redux
actions.
- **Documentation**
- Updated comments for clarity in test specifications.
- **Style**
- Adjusted code styling for consistency across test suites.
- **Bug Fixes**
- Fixed data retrieval logic in tests to ensure correct data extraction
from API responses.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
## Description
Our objective in this pr is to improve the page load time of our
application by calling a consolidated-api which contains all the
resources to load our pages. This PR contains all the client side
changes to call the consolidated-api as well as feature flag related
changes.
Fixes#29650 & #29939
#### 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
>
>
#### 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
- [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
- **Refactor**
- Updated network request aliases and response handling in end-to-end
tests.
- **New Features**
- Introduced a new API class `ConsolidatedPageLoadApi` for fetching
consolidated page load data.
- **Tests**
- Enhanced testing for application URL navigation and data retrieval.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
## Description
1. Added frontend and backend custom OTLP telemetry to track execute
flow
2. Updated end vars in client side code to match with server sdk
intialisation code.
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes#28800 and #28805
#### Type of change
- Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception)
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [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
- [ ] 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
Refactor PR for action response view and action execution saga
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Refactor PR for https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith-ee/pull/2936
#### Media
> A video or a GIF is preferred. when using Loom, don’t embed because it
looks like it’s a GIF. instead, just link to the video
>
>
#### Type of change
- Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception)
## Testing
>
#### How Has This Been Tested?
> Please describe the tests that you ran to verify your changes. Also
list any relevant details for your test configuration.
> Delete anything that is not relevant
- [ ] Manual
- [ ] JUnit
- [ ] Jest
- [ ] Cypress
>
>
#### Test Plan
> Add Testsmith test cases links that relate to this PR
>
>
#### Issues raised during DP testing
> Link issues raised during DP testing for better visiblity and tracking
(copy link from comments dropped on this PR)
>
>
>
## Checklist:
#### Dev activity
- [ ] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [ ] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [ ] My changes generate no new warnings
- [ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [ ] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag
#### QA activity:
- [ ] [Speedbreak
features](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#speedbreakers-)
have been covered
- [ ] Test plan covers all impacted features and [areas of
interest](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#areas-of-interest-)
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by project stakeholders and other
QA members
- [ ] Manually tested functionality on DP
- [ ] We had an implementation alignment call with stakeholders post QA
Round 2
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by SDET/manual QA
- [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after Cypress tests were reviewed
- [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after JUnit tests were reviewed
---------
Co-authored-by: Rishabh-Rathod <rishabh.rathod@appsmith.com>
## Description
Code changes to preserve execution data when a Query/JS Object is
renamed.
>
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes#28985
>
>
#### 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
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
>
>
>
## Testing
>
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [x] Manual
- [x] 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
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] My changes generate no new warnings
- [x] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [x] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag
#### QA activity:
- [ ] [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
This PR reduces the size of the unevalTree by removing action/query/js
function data from it. This improves the performance of Apps by
1. Reducing the overall time for generating dataTree diffs
2. Decreasing the time taken to generate allKeys
3. Reducing the number of nodes in the dependency graph thereby
improving dependency graph operations like
- Sorting dependencies
- Adding nodes to the dep graph
### Performance
Release
<img width="294" alt="Screenshot 2023-09-27 at 20 22 31"
src="https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/assets/46670083/df4667e5-33c3-44c6-bfd4-a170edaa43b8">
DP
<img width="304" alt="Screenshot 2023-09-27 at 20 24 16"
src="https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/assets/46670083/598d4a2d-9a32-4bcf-81e7-25f178f779d5">
37.8% improvement in worker scripting time for fairly large App.
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes#23570
#### Type of change
- New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
#### 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
1. Validating the Crude app/ api query and JS object
2. Validating the chart/table/Select/Tree select for Query and API
#### 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
> 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
- [x] Manual
- [x] Jest
- [x] Cypress
>
>
#### Test Plan
> One Click Binding -
https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/issues/2390
>
#### 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
- [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/Test-plan-implementation#speedbreaker-features-to-consider-for-every-change)
have been covered
- [ ] Test plan covers all impacted features and [areas of
interest](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans/_edit#areas-of-interest)
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by project stakeholders and other
QA members
- [ ] Manually tested functionality on DP
- [ ] We had an implementation alignment call with stakeholders post QA
Round 2
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by SDET/manual QA
- [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after Cypress tests were reviewed
- [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after JUnit tests were reviewed
---------
Co-authored-by: Vemparala Surya Vamsi <vamsi@appsmith.com>
> Pull Request Template
>
> Use this template to quickly create a well written pull request.
Delete all quotes before creating the pull request.
## Description
> This adds a soft refresh functionality which will be used upon
switching environment.
Fixes#22928#22931#22863
> 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.
- Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception)
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Manual
### 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:
- [ ] Test plan has been approved by relevant developers
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by QA
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by either SDET or
manual QA
- [ ] Organized project review call with relevant stakeholders after
Round 1/2 of QA
- [ ] Added Test Plan Approved label after reveiwing all Cypress test
## Description
Fix: Update js collections calls are being sent before onPageLoad calls
Fixes#20769
## Type of change
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Manual
### Test Plan
- [x] existing apps
- [x] git imported apps
- [x] git connected apps
### 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:
- [ ] Test plan has been approved by relevant developers
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by QA
- [x] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by either SDET or
manual QA
- [ ] Organized project review call with relevant stakeholders after
Round 1/2 of QA
- [x] Added Test Plan Approved label after reveiwing all Cypress test
## Description
This PR upgrades Prettier to v2 + enforces TypeScript’s [`import
type`](https://www.typescriptlang.org/docs/handbook/release-notes/typescript-3-8.html#type-only-imports-and-export)
syntax where applicable. It’s submitted as a separate PR so we can merge
it easily.
As a part of this PR, we reformat the codebase heavily:
- add `import type` everywhere where it’s required, and
- re-format the code to account for Prettier 2’s breaking changes:
https://prettier.io/blog/2020/03/21/2.0.0.html#breaking-changes
This PR is submitted against `release` to make sure all new code by team
members will adhere to new formatting standards, and we’ll have fewer
conflicts when merging `bundle-optimizations` into `release`. (I’ll
merge `release` back into `bundle-optimizations` once this PR is
merged.)
### Why is this needed?
This PR is needed because, for the Lodash optimization from
7cbb12af88,
we need to use `import type`. Otherwise, `babel-plugin-lodash` complains
that `LoDashStatic` is not a lodash function.
However, just using `import type` in the current codebase will give you
this:
<img width="962" alt="Screenshot 2023-03-08 at 17 45 59"
src="https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/2953267/223775744-407afa0c-e8b9-44a1-90f9-b879348da57f.png">
That’s because Prettier 1 can’t parse `import type` at all. To parse it,
we need to upgrade to Prettier 2.
### Why enforce `import type`?
Apart from just enabling `import type` support, this PR enforces
specifying `import type` everywhere it’s needed. (Developers will get
immediate TypeScript and ESLint errors when they forget to do so.)
I’m doing this because I believe `import type` improves DX and makes
refactorings easier.
Let’s say you had a few imports like below. Can you tell which of these
imports will increase the bundle size? (Tip: it’s not all of them!)
```ts
// app/client/src/workers/Linting/utils.ts
import { Position } from "codemirror";
import { LintError as JSHintError, LintOptions } from "jshint";
import { get, isEmpty, isNumber, keys, last, set } from "lodash";
```
It’s pretty hard, right?
What about now?
```ts
// app/client/src/workers/Linting/utils.ts
import type { Position } from "codemirror";
import type { LintError as JSHintError, LintOptions } from "jshint";
import { get, isEmpty, isNumber, keys, last, set } from "lodash";
```
Now, it’s clear that only `lodash` will be bundled.
This helps developers to see which imports are problematic, but it
_also_ helps with refactorings. Now, if you want to see where
`codemirror` is bundled, you can just grep for `import \{.*\} from
"codemirror"` – and you won’t get any type-only imports.
This also helps (some) bundlers. Upon transpiling, TypeScript erases
type-only imports completely. In some environment (not ours), this makes
the bundle smaller, as the bundler doesn’t need to bundle type-only
imports anymore.
## Type of change
- Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception)
## How Has This Been Tested?
This was tested to not break the build.
### 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
- [ ] 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:
- [ ] Test plan has been approved by relevant developers
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by QA
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by either SDET or
manual QA
- [ ] Organized project review call with relevant stakeholders after
Round 1/2 of QA
- [ ] Added Test Plan Approved label after reveiwing all Cypress test
---------
Co-authored-by: Satish Gandham <hello@satishgandham.com>
Co-authored-by: Satish Gandham <satish.iitg@gmail.com>
1. Fixed on page load actions getting called multiple times.
2. Now Evaluation only happens once we complete the fetching of the page's all entities including js objects and actions, this avoids cases where actions are not defined when ran.
Co-authored-by: Rishabh-Rathod <rishabh.rathod@appsmith.com>
* Implemented code splitting of some files for SAML integration
* Implemented code splitting of some more files for SAML integration
* updated redirect url component
* fixed an import statement
* fixed a unit test
* updated restart banner tooltip logic
* updated an import statement
* POC
* Closing channels
* WIP
* v1
* get working with JS editor
* autocomplete
* added comments
* try removing an import
* different way of import
* dependency map added to body
* triggers can be part of js editor functions hence
* removed unwanted lines
* new flow chnages
* Resolve conflicts
* small css changes for empty state
* Fix prettier
* Fixes
* flow changes part 2
* Mock web worker for testing
* Throw errors during evaluation
* Action execution should be non blocking on the main thread to evaluation of further actions
* WIP
* Fix build issue
* Fix warnings
* Rename
* Refactor and add tests for worker util
* Fix response flow post refactor
* added settings icon for js editor
* WIP
* WIP
* WIP
* Tests for promises
* settings for each function of js object added
* Error handling
* Error handing action validation
* Update test
* Passing callback data in the eval trigger flow
* log triggers to be executed
* WIP
* confirm before execution
* Remove debugging
* Fix backwards compatibility
* Avoid passing trigger meta around
* fix button loading
* handle error callbacks
* fix tests
* tests
* fix console error when checking for async
* Fix async function check
* Fix async function check again
* fix bad commit
* Add some comments
* added clientSideExecution flag for js functions
* css changes for settings icon
* unsued code removed
* on page load PART 1
* onPageLoad rest iof changes
* corrected async badge
* removed duplicate test cases
* added confirm modal for js functions
* removed unused code
* small chnage
* dependency was not getting created
* Fix confirmation modal
* unused code removed
* replaced new confirmsaga
* confirmaton box changes
* Fixing JSEditor Run butn locator
* corrected property
* dependency map was failing
* changed key for confirmation box
Co-authored-by: hetunandu <hetu@appsmith.com>
Co-authored-by: Hetu Nandu <hetunandu@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Arpit Mohan <arpit@appsmith.com>
Co-authored-by: Aishwarya UR <aishwarya@appsmith.com>
* Fixes modal pop up bugs on page load
* send confirmBeforeExecute attribute with page execution order info
(cherry picked from commit 6d3cfdfbdb83b435e67797f3fb27024799d5d579)
Co-authored-by: Sumit Kumar <sumit@appsmith.com>
