f68f325a53
4 Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Ashit Rath
|
70f8777afd
|
chore: Compute default value for jsaction params (#34708)
## Description
This PR adds the values to jsArguments. The logic for this is
- If the value is string then it is kept as is
- For non-strings they are wrapped with `{{ }}` do maintain the data
type integrity when evaluated.
This property is currently not used anywhere in the platform and this is
intended to be used by js modules to identify the default values of
parameters and provide support to alter then in a UI in the app.
This PR also splits `workers/Evaluation/getJSActionForEvalContext.ts` to
override in the EE for modules
PR for https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith-ee/pull/4612
## 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/9919551354>
> Commit: c6ab372477fb3fd2f1ce171729af4fa64ac2a487
> <a
href="https://internal.appsmith.com/app/cypress-dashboard/rundetails-65890b3c81d7400d08fa9ee5?branch=master&workflowId=9919551354&attempt=1"
target="_blank">Cypress dashboard</a>.
> Tags: `@tag.All`
> Spec:
> <hr>Sat, 13 Jul 2024 12:16:08 UTC
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: Cypress test results -->
## Communication
Should the DevRel and Marketing teams inform users about this change?
- [ ] Yes
- [ ] No
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai
-->
## Summary by CodeRabbit
- **New Features**
- Added support for additional node types (`RestElement`,
`ObjectPattern`, `ArrayPattern`) in our AST processing.
- Introduced `addPropertiesToJSObjectCode` function to enhance
JavaScript object property management.
- **Updates**
- Enhanced `myFun2` function with new parameters and default values to
improve flexibility and usage.
- Improved `parseJSObject` function with additional parameters for
better functionality.
- **Tests**
- Added a new test suite for `addPropertiesToJSObjectCode` function to
ensure robust property management in JavaScript objects.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
|
||
|
Rishabh Rathod
|
b863b39d69
|
feat: Add linting error for assignment expression (#25140)
## Description This change adds a linting error for direct mutation of widget property like `Widget.property = "dsf"` and instead suggests to use setter methods. #### PR fixes following issue(s) Fixes #5822 #### Type of change - New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality) ## Testing - [x] Add jest tests as mentioned in the [comments](https://www.notion.so/appsmith/Widget-Property-Setters-Tech-Spec-2a34730e2e6d4df8ae7637c363b1096c?pvs=4#276554d9875b42d68868aa969e9d7d03) of the tech spec document for this project. - [x] Add test to verify linting error for widget assignment - [x] Add cypress test for autocomplete of more setter methods - [x] Add cypress test for currencyInput setValue #### How Has This Been Tested? - [ ] Manual - [ ] Jest - [x] Cypress #### 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 - [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 --------- Co-authored-by: Druthi Polisetty <druthi@appsmith.com> |
||
|
Anand Srinivasan
|
9dd015a1e6
|
feat: peek overlay nested properties + perf improvements (#23414)
Fixes #23057 Fixes #23054 ## Description TL;DR Added support for peeking on nested properties. e.g. `Api1.data[0].id`. This won't work when: - local variables are involved in the expression. e.g. `Api1.data[x].id` won't support peeking at the variable `[x]` or anything after that. - library code is involved e.g. `moment`, `_` etc... - when functions are called. e.g. Api1.data[0].id.toFixed() Because these cases requires evaluation. <img width="355" alt="image" src="https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/assets/66776129/d09d1f0d-1692-46f5-8ec1-592f4fe75f7a"> #### Media (old vs new) https://www.loom.com/share/dedcf113439c4ee2a19028acca54045e ## Performance improvements: - Use AST to identify expressions instead marking text manually. - This reduces the number of markers we process (~ half). - Before  - After  - AST logs https://www.loom.com/share/ddde93233cc8470ea04309d8a8332240 #### Type of change - Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue) - 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/2402 #### Issues raised during DP testing https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/pull/23414#issuecomment-1553164908 ## 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/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) - [ ] 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 |
||
|
Valera Melnikov
|
9f607d250d
|
chore: move local dependency to packages (#23395)
## Description 1. Move everything related to client from app folder to client folder (`.yarn`, `yarn.lock`, package.json, .gitignore) 2. Move `ast` and `rst` to client packages 3. Fix running scripts in packages 4. Add running unit tests in packages in CI TODO: It is necessary to consider enabling the `nmHoistingLimits: workspaces` option, since now all packages are hoisted to the root, there may be issues with dependencies in workspaces. Also, there is a possibility of implicit use of packages. https://yarnpkg.com/configuration/yarnrc#nmHoistingLimits #### PR fixes following issue(s) Fixes #23333 #### Type of change - Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception) ## Testing #### How Has This Been Tested? - [x] Manual - [x] Jest - [x] Cypress ## Checklist: #### Dev activity - [x] My code follows the style guidelines of this project - [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code - [ ] 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 Co-authored-by: Valera Melnikov <melnikov.vv@greendatasoft.ru> |