f62816a9d5
15 Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
arunvjn
|
f62816a9d5
|
fix: Validation issue in select widget on page reload (#28277)
## Description Fixes the regression in select widget validation caused by https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/27408 This PR remove most of the re-validation related logic written in evaluations code base. Going forward we'll maintain an internal dependencyMap for widgets. This can help avoid IIFE hacks to introduce dependency between fields. ###### Changes - Removes the concept of dependentPaths in validation config. - Remove validationDependencyMap from eval code base. - Added internal dependency map to base widget. - Added dependency map config for select, multi-select & Tabs widget. #### PR fixes following issue(s) Fixes #28368 Fixes #28224 #### Type of change - Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue) > > ## Testing > #### How Has This Been Tested? - [x] Manual - [ ] JUnit - [x] 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 - [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: - [x] [Speedbreak features](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#speedbreakers-) have been covered - [x] 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 - [x] Manually tested functionality on DP - [ ] We had an implementation alignment call with stakeholders post QA Round 2 - [x] 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 |
||
|
Apeksha Bhosale
|
0f393a2423
|
chore: separated tree type into common file to be extended on EE (#27812)
## Description UnEvalTree, dataTree and configTree's entities needs to be extended on EE to accommodate module inputs and different types of modules hence the separation. I have added few more sanity checks in the existing code which were throwing errors/warning on EE. #### PR fixes following issue(s) Fixes # (issue number) #### 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 |
||
|
arunvjn
|
c8d661ab02
|
chore: prevent mutation during evaluation and execution (#27722)
## Description Fixes the data mutation bug introduced back in [#11001](https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/11001). We now create 2 data tree in evaluation flow, one that is set against the execution context (prone to mutation) and another one which only gets the values of the path that is being evaluated. Accidental mutation often crashes the app. To replicate the issue 1. D&D a text widget and an Input widget 2. In the input widget default text field, write `{{ Text1.text = 123 }}` Context - https://theappsmith.slack.com/archives/C02K0SZQ7V3/p1695975703880489 #### PR fixes following issue(s) Fixes #19221 > > #### Type of change - Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue) > > ## Testing > #### How Has This Been Tested? - [x] Manual - [x] Jest > > #### Test Plan - [x] Test evaluations across widgets, framework functions, setter methods - [x] Existing application sanity check - [x] Template apps and CRUD > > #### Issues raised during DP testing none > > > ## 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: - [x] [Speedbreak features](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#speedbreakers-) have been covered - [x] 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 - [x] 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 |
||
|
Apeksha Bhosale
|
4dc6df0013
|
chore: query module evaluation (#27660)
> Pull Request Template > > Use this template to quickly create a well written pull request. Delete all quotes before creating the pull request. > ## Description There are multiple refactors and split for query module's creator flow changes which involves module input -- it's a new entity introduced as part of modules project #### PR fixes following issue(s) Fixes # (issue number) Part of https://app.zenhub.com/workspaces/modules-pod-63e0d668a7fea03850c89c6f/issues/gh/appsmithorg/appsmith/27352 #### 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 |
||
|
Vemparala Surya Vamsi
|
ec922d1366
|
chore: send diff updates from worker (#24933)
## Description - Optimisation around evaluation updates to the state - Updates generation logic moved from main thread to worker thread - The diff between previous state and next state is less exacting to limit the number of updates - Logic to compress similar updates to reduce the diff updates sent from worker thread to main thread - Memoisation fixes and some selector optimisation for improved performance. #### PR fixes following issue(s) Fixes #24866 #### 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 - [x] Manual - [x] 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 - [ ] 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 |
||
|
Rishabh Rathod
|
e15da63f57
|
fix: setter mutation issue (#25886)
## Description When we added a mutation task to the microtask queue, earlier we didn't update the evalProps as soon as the change is triggered, due to this we lost the update. Now, we update the evalProps as soon as the setter or getter for JSObject variable is triggered making sure the latest value is always present. #### PR fixes following issue(s) Fixes #25364 |
||
|
Favour Ohanekwu
|
b7ca44b252
|
feat: Remove async/sync differentiation from Appsmith (#25399)
## Description This PR removes the differentiation between async and sync js functions in Appsmith - All JS functions can run on page load - All JS functions can request confirmation before executing #### PR fixes following issue(s) Fixes #25176 Fixes #25065 Fixes #15560 Fixes #15273 Fixes #12639 Fixes #14229 Fixes #13888 ### Latest DP https://ce-25399.dp.appsmith.com/ ### Performance <img width="748" alt="Screenshot 2023-08-04 at 11 05 50" src="https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/assets/46670083/580b2091-7ee7-4845-b7bf-ca76bc3e6c1f"> #### 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 - [ ] Jest - [x] Cypress > > #### Test Plan > https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/issues/2455 > > #### 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 - [x] Test plan covers all impacted features and [areas of interest](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#areas-of-interest-) - [x] Test plan has been peer reviewed by project stakeholders and other QA members - [x] Manually tested functionality on DP - [x] 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: Nidhi <nidhi@appsmith.com> |
||
|
Rishabh Rathod
|
55985c2e08
|
fix: revalidation logic (#25420)
## Description Debugger logs were only updated according to the evaluation order earlier this led to an issue as after revalidation we need to update the debugger errors. #### PR fixes following issue(s) Fixes #24905 #### Type of change - Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue) ## Testing #### Test Plan - Validation sanity test #### Issues raised during DP testing ## 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 - [x] 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 |
||
|
Rishabh Rathod
|
8b1f5d7064
|
fix: CurrencyInput setValue due to meta override (#25290) | ||
|
Druthi Polisetty
|
2fc20cfe8e
|
feat: widget property setters (#23441)
## Description
- This PR adds setter methods to update widget property
programmatically.
Example:-
`Input1.setText("setter methods are cool!");`
Docs link :
https://docs.appsmith.com/reference/widgets
For any selected widget check the `Methods` section
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes
#### Type of change
- New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
## Testing
>
#### How Has This Been Tested?
- [x] Manual
- [x] Jest
- [x] Cypress
>
>
#### Test Plan
https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/issues/2409
#### Issues raised during DP testing
- [x] [Errors are not logged in the
debugger](https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/23441#issuecomment-1564017346)
separate GitHub issue
https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/24609
- [x]
https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/23441#issuecomment-1564155545
( `setVisibility("false")` )
- [x]
https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/23441#issuecomment-1580525843
- [x]
https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/23441#issuecomment-1576582825
- Blocker for testing
- [x]
https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/23441#issuecomment-1577956441
- [x]
https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/23441#issuecomment-1577930108
- Not a issue (lint error query)
- [x]
https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/23441#issuecomment-1593471791
- [x]
https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/23441#issuecomment-1591440488
- [x]
https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/23441#issuecomment-1586747864
- [x]
https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/23441#issuecomment-1596738201
- [x]
https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/23441#issuecomment-1598541537
- [x]
https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/23441#issuecomment-1611413076
- [x]
https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/23441#issuecomment-1612621567
- [ ]
https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/23441#issuecomment-1619654507
- [ ]
https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/23441#issuecomment-1621256722
>
>
## 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/Test-plan-implementation#speedbreaker-features-to-consider-for-every-change)
have been covered
- [x] Test plan covers all impacted features and [areas of
interest](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans/_edit#areas-of-interest)
- [x] 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>
|
||
|
Rishabh Rathod
|
a2a881991e
|
chore: Add analytics for JSObject variable (#24740)
## Description Add analytics for JSObject variable creation and mutation event. #### PR fixes following issue(s) Fixes #24038 #### Type of change - Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue) ## Testing #### How Has This Been Tested? #### Test Plan #### Issues raised during DP testing ## 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 |
||
|
Favour Ohanekwu
|
505f632210
|
fix: Prevent evalTree and configTree from being undefined (#23374)
## Description This PR prevents evalTree and configTree from being undefined values. #### PR fixes following issue(s) Fixes #23283 #### Type of change - Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue) ## Testing Nil #### 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 - [ ] 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/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 |
||
|
Rishabh Rathod
|
61bdac3a77
|
fix: API.run undefined error (#23518)
## Description After evaluating the variable mutation changes set the evalContext to async evaluation so that API or query could execute as expected. #### PR fixes following issue(s) Fixes https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/23519 #### 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 - [ ] Manual - [ ] 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/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 |
||
|
Druthi Polisetty
|
99257efdb8
|
feat: Passing another param isUndefined to BINDING_SUCCESS event (#23112)
## Description Passing another param isUndefined that captures if the evaluatedValue of a new binding is undefined and is sent in the BINDING_SUCCESS event. Fixes #22909 #### Type of change - New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality) ## Testing #### How Has This Been Tested? - [x] Validated binding for table , select multi select text and button ## 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/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 |
||
|
Rishabh Rathod
|
d6372d0b81
|
feat: JSObject variable as a state (JSObject variable mutation) (#19926)
Fixes #19653 Fixes #14568 Fixes #17199 Fixes #14989 In this PR, we introduce a new feature in JSObject where the `variables` are now state and widgets are reactive to the change in the variable value. - It means that `JSObject.myVar1 = "Hello world"` would show `Hello world` where ever a binding `{{JSObject.myVar1}}` is used. Further changes - JSObject run functionality, executes all the functions in async evaluation. - `executeSyncJS` flow is removed - `resolvedFunctions` state is moved to JSCollection class. - unEval JSObject value i.e., currentJSCollectionState is moved to JSCollection class. - `evalTreeWithChanges` is introduced - A new flow to trigger evaluation from the worker and send the updated dataTree to mainThread. - This would open up a new possibility of features in evaluation mentioned [here](https://www.notion.so/appsmith/RFC-Dependent-Property-in-Widgets-f3b29ad652b549dd8c49189f48dbbc4b) - Introduction of `updateDataTreeHandler` to accept new dataTree from the worker. ## Type of change - New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality) ## How Has This Been Tested? ### Jest Test - `Mutation.test.ts` - `JSVariableProxy.test.ts` - `removeProxy.test.ts` ### Cypress test - Mutation with - numbers - array - object - map - set ### Test Plan - https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/issues/2186 ### Issues raised during DP testing - https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/19926#issuecomment-1453275688 - https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/19926#issuecomment-1478975487 - https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/19926#issuecomment-1482929425 - https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/19926#issuecomment-1486611858 Co-authored-by: Rimil Dey <rimildeyjsr@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: Rimil Dey <rimil@appsmith.com> Co-authored-by: arunvjn <32433245+arunvjn@users.noreply.github.com> |