f8ef73b8a6
13 Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Ashok Kumar M
|
830ccaa692
|
feat: Anvil section space redistribution (#29632)
## Description Anvil Section Space distribution In this pr, we are adding a feature to sections to redistribute a sections space within its zones. you can find details of it over [here](https://www.notion.so/Sections-and-Zones-design-WIP-cbcb8b0ab2514aaf90d04aa3309ad56c) As part of it we have three parts of changes - UI components - Middleware(Redux and Sagas) - Space redistribution algorithm UI/UX: https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/assets/35134347/092ba31f-d2e5-400e-80d7-45878d75ff98 Middleware changes: - have added a new state in WidgetDragResizeState `anvil` and into it have added `isDistributingSpace` to capture when space distribution is active. - added `anvilSpaceDistributionSagas` to capture all sagas wrt space redistribution Space redistribution algorithm: - Have added algorithm for redistributing space, have noted down details about it [here](https://www.notion.so/appsmith/Space-distribution-and-responsiveness-questions-517d140e83864c2287765c99dcd7c8da?pvs=4#9b33c84bcea24cfca63d7caef036f896). > #### PR fixes following issue(s) Fixes # (issue number) > if no issue exists, please create an issue and ask the maintainers about this first > > #### Media > A video or a GIF is preferred. when using Loom, don’t embed because it looks like it’s a GIF. instead, just link to the video > > #### Type of change > Please delete options that are not relevant. - Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue) - New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality) - Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected) - Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception) - This change requires a documentation update > > > ## Testing > #### How Has This Been Tested? > Please describe the tests that you ran to verify your changes. Also list any relevant details for your test configuration. > Delete anything that is not relevant - [ ] Manual - [ ] JUnit - [ ] Jest - [ ] Cypress > > #### Test Plan > Add Testsmith test cases links that relate to this PR > > #### Issues raised during DP testing > Link issues raised during DP testing for better visiblity and tracking (copy link from comments dropped on this PR) > > > ## Checklist: #### Dev activity - [ ] My code follows the style guidelines of this project - [ ] I have performed a self-review of my own code - [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas - [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation - [ ] My changes generate no new warnings - [ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works - [ ] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes - [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag #### QA activity: - [ ] [Speedbreak features](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#speedbreakers-) have been covered - [ ] Test plan covers all impacted features and [areas of interest](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#areas-of-interest-) - [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by project stakeholders and other QA members - [ ] Manually tested functionality on DP - [ ] We had an implementation alignment call with stakeholders post QA Round 2 - [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by SDET/manual QA - [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after Cypress tests were reviewed - [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after JUnit tests were reviewed <!-- This is an auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai --> ## Summary by CodeRabbit - **New Features** - Enhanced widget resizing capabilities with space distribution handles in Anvil layout system. - Introduced preview mode support for widget size configuration. - **Enhancements** - Improved Anvil layout system with dynamic space distribution during resizing. - Added flexibility to widget size configuration by considering preview mode. - **Bug Fixes** - Corrected widget border styles to reflect space distribution and resizing states. - **Refactor** - Streamlined space distribution logic in Anvil layout sagas and selectors. - Updated `AnvilFlexComponent` to conditionally assign `flexGrow` property. - **Documentation** - Updated comments to clarify new space distribution behavior in Anvil layout. - **Style** - Adjusted styles for space distribution handles in section layouts. - **Chores** - Added new action types for Anvil space distribution process. - Enhanced Redux state structure for drag and resize operations. <!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai --> --------- Co-authored-by: Preet <preetsidhu.bits@gmail.com> |
||
|
Preet Sidhu
|
cf764a9b40
|
chore: add configuration for large and small widgets (#28671)
## Description Use case - Widgets need to be distinguished as large or small in Anvil. 1. Add property ``isLargeWidget`` to ``AnvilConfig`` interface. 2. Update AnvilConfig for all widget. Especially, WDS widgets. #### 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 - [ ] JUnit - [ ] Jest - [ ] Cypress ## Checklist: #### Dev activity - [x] My code follows the style guidelines of this project - [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code - [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas - [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation - [x] My changes generate no new warnings - [ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works - [ ] 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 --------- Co-authored-by: Ashok Kumar M <35134347+marks0351@users.noreply.github.com> |
||
|
Preet Sidhu
|
79823158e2
|
chore: update highlight logic to disregard empty layouts. (#28339)
## Description 1. Update drop zone calculation logic for highlights. 2. Discard highlights from empty non drop target layouts. 3. Use single ``rowGap`` value. 4. Fix multi delete issue, where ghost highlights are visible after deleting all widgets at once. #### PR fixes following issue(s) Fixes #28325 Fixes #28342 #### Type of change - Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue) #### How Has This Been Tested? > Please describe the tests that you ran to verify your changes. Also list any relevant details for your test configuration. > Delete anything that is not relevant - [x] Manual - [ ] JUnit - [ ] Jest - [ ] Cypress ## Checklist: #### Dev activity - [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 |
||
|
Rishabh Rathod
|
68df2a18a6
|
chore: CE changes for module input autocomplete (#28221) | ||
|
Preet Sidhu
|
69f4a412bf
|
chore: add highlight calculation logic for layouts. (#27980)
## Description 1. Add LayoutComponent functionality. 2. Create Basic LayoutComponents. 3. Create LayoutPresets needed for Container-like widgets. 4. Add highlight calculation logic for all basic Layout Components. 5. Create dragging sagas for Anvil. 6. Create DraggingArena associated functionality to handle DnD in Anvil. #### PR fixes following issue(s) Fixes #27004 #### Type of change > Please delete options that are not relevant. - New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality) ## Testing #### How Has This Been Tested? - [ ] Manual - [ ] JUnit - [x] Jest - [ ] Cypress ## Checklist: #### Dev activity - [x] My code follows the style guidelines of this project - [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code - [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas - [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation - [x] My changes generate no new warnings - [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 --------- Co-authored-by: Ashok Kumar M <35134347+marks0351@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: Aswath K <aswath.sana@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: rahulramesha <rahul@appsmith.com> Co-authored-by: rahulramesha <71900764+rahulramesha@users.noreply.github.com> |
||
|
Valera Melnikov
|
9eac55a380
|
chore: add consistent-type-definitions rule (#27907)
## Description Add consistent-type-definitions rule |
||
|
Sangeeth Sivan
|
43940b7f2f
|
feat: JSON form widget one click binding integration (#25873)
## Description - Adds one click binding support for JSON form widget. #### PR fixes following issue(s) Fixes #25561 Fixes #26375 #### 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 - New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality) ## Testing > #### How Has This Been Tested? > Please describe the tests that you ran to verify your changes. Also list any relevant details for your test configuration. > Delete anything that is not relevant - [x] Manual - [x] Jest - [x] Cypress #### Test Plan > [One click binding support on JSON Form (Test plan)](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/issues/2523) #### 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/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: balajisoundar <balaji@appsmith.com> |
||
|
Preet Sidhu
|
46dcf3a8f0
|
chore: Create layout system structure for Anvil and AnvilFlexComponent. (#27178)
## Description
1. Add new ```appPositioningType``` : ANVIL.
2. Create new code path and folder structure for Anvil layout system.
3. Move common pieces of functionalities between autoLayout and anvil to
anvil folder structure (e.g. ```CanvasResizer```).
4. Create ```AnvilFlexComponent```.
5. Use WDS Flex component in AnvilFlexComponent.
6. Pass min max size props in a data structure that is supported by
container queries in the Flex component.
e.g. min-width: { base: "120px", "480px": "200px" }
7. Supply the following flex properties (flex-grow flex-shrink
flex-basis) to widgets depending on their ```responsiveBehvaiour```:
a) Fill: ```flex: 1 1 0%;```
b) Hug: ```flex: 0 0 auto;```
#### PR fixes following issue(s)
Fixes # (issue number)
1. [#26987](https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/26987)
2. [#26609](https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/26609)
3. [#26611](https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/26611)
#### Type of change
- New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
## Testing
>
#### How Has This Been Tested?
> Please describe the tests that you ran to verify your changes. Also
list any relevant details for your test configuration.
> Delete anything that is not relevant
- [x] Manual
- [ ] JUnit
- [x] Jest
- [ ] Cypress
## Checklist:
#### Dev activity
- [x] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [ ] 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
- [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
---------
Co-authored-by: Ashok Kumar M <35134347+marks0351@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Aswath K <aswath.sana@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: rahulramesha <rahul@appsmith.com>
Co-authored-by: rahulramesha <71900764+rahulramesha@users.noreply.github.com>
|
||
|
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 |
||
|
Aswath K
|
fb4149e0e0
|
chore: Remove position props from widgets (#26781) | ||
|
Ashok Kumar M
|
0cbec4283c
|
chore: BaseWidget Restructuring (#26562)
## Description Create a Basewidget wrapper that supplies Widget Onion as per the layout system. involves extracting widget layers presently in the BaseWidget into HOCs and hooks and make sure layout systems can be scaled. Make sure Modal widget is handled as a overlay widget whose wrappers are supplied by basewidget instead of modal widget implementing its own editing blocks. This PR also separates the drag n drop logic for both auto layout and fixed layout. They are moved into respective Layout system folders to have clear sepsration of concern #### PR fixes following issue(s) Fixes #26674 Fixes #26675 Fixes #26676 Fixes #26570 Fixes #26590 Fixes #26591 Fixes #26592 <img width="931" alt="BaseWidgetHOC" src="https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/assets/35134347/22f4cf1e-e4c5-4475-83a8-6818e7cebe70"> [Miro Link to view the new system](https://miro.com/app/board/uXjVM6vRgf8=/?moveToWidget=3458764560239189204&cot=14) > 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. - 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) > > > ## Testing > #### How Has This Been Tested? > Please describe the tests that you ran to verify your changes. Also list any relevant details for your test configuration. > Delete anything that is not relevant - [x] Manual - [ ] JUnit - [ ] Jest - [ ] Cypress > > #### Test Plan > Add Testsmith test cases links that relate to this PR > > #### Issues raised during DP testing > Link issues raised during DP testing for better visiblity and tracking (copy link from comments dropped on this PR) > > > ## Checklist: #### Dev activity - [ ] My code follows the style guidelines of this project - [ ] I have performed a self-review of my own code - [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas - [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation - [ ] My changes generate no new warnings - [ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works - [ ] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes - [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag #### QA activity: - [ ] [Speedbreak features](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#speedbreakers-) have been covered - [ ] Test plan covers all impacted features and [areas of interest](https://github.com/appsmithorg/TestSmith/wiki/Guidelines-for-test-plans#areas-of-interest-) - [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by project stakeholders and other QA members - [ ] Manually tested functionality on DP - [ ] We had an implementation alignment call with stakeholders post QA Round 2 - [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by SDET/manual QA - [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after Cypress tests were reviewed - [ ] Added `Test Plan Approved` label after JUnit tests were reviewed --------- Co-authored-by: rahulramesha <rahul@appsmith.com> Co-authored-by: rahulramesha <71900764+rahulramesha@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: Preet Sidhu <preetsidhu.bits@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: Aswath K <aswath.sana@gmail.com> |
||
|
Aman Agarwal
|
c20449c948
|
fix: converted sniping test cases to support suggested widgets, api binding bug (#26911) | ||
|
balajisoundar
|
2608e3dbd3
|
chore: Move the widget config to widget class (#26073)
## Description - Remove the config objects from widget and config maps from the widget factory. - Introduce methods in widget development API to dynamically fetch this items. - freeze the widget configuration. #### PR fixes following issue(s) Fixes https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/26008 > 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 - [ ] 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 - [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 |