Skip to content

fix: Rbac git test failure#34862

Merged
albinAppsmith merged 1 commit intoreleasefrom
tbd-failure-ide-search
Jul 11, 2024
Merged

fix: Rbac git test failure#34862
albinAppsmith merged 1 commit intoreleasefrom
tbd-failure-ide-search

Conversation

@albinAppsmith
Copy link
Contributor

@albinAppsmith albinAppsmith commented Jul 11, 2024

Description

Fixed RBAC git failure due to recent IDE search changes.

Automation

/ok-to-test tags="@tag.All"

🔍 Cypress test results

Tip

🟢 🟢 🟢 All cypress tests have passed! 🎉 🎉 🎉
Workflow run: https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/actions/runs/9886280380
Commit: efa6f0e
Cypress dashboard.
Tags: @tag.All
Spec:


Thu, 11 Jul 2024 07:14:07 UTC

Communication

Should the DevRel and Marketing teams inform users about this change?

  • Yes
  • No

Summary by CodeRabbit

  • Bug Fixes
    • Updated navigation command to JavaScript Editor to improve reliability by removing unnecessary click action.

@coderabbitai
Copy link
Contributor

coderabbitai bot commented Jul 11, 2024

Walkthrough

The NavigateToJSEditor command in the Cypress test suite for the app client has been updated. Specifically, the click action on the "New JS object" element has been removed, streamlining the command's execution flow.

Changes

File Change Summary
app/client/cypress/support/commands.js Removed the click action on "New JS object" in NavigateToJSEditor.

Poem

In code we trust, a change we see,
A click removed, now set free.
The JS Editor calls, without a hitch,
Our tests proceed without a glitch.
Cypress glides through tasks anew,
With streamlined steps, our suite grew.


Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media?

Share
Tips

Chat

There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:

  • Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by CodeRabbit. Example:
    • I pushed a fix in commit <commit_id>.
    • Generate unit testing code for this file.
    • Open a follow-up GitHub issue for this discussion.
  • Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab): Tag @coderabbitai in a new review comment at the desired location with your query. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai generate unit testing code for this file.
    • @coderabbitai modularize this function.
  • PR comments: Tag @coderabbitai in a new PR comment to ask questions about the PR branch. For the best results, please provide a very specific query, as very limited context is provided in this mode. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai generate interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table.
    • @coderabbitai show all the console.log statements in this repository.
    • @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and generate unit testing code.
    • @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.
    • @coderabbitai help me debug CodeRabbit configuration file.

Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments.

CodeRabbit Commands (invoked as PR comments)

  • @coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
  • @coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
  • @coderabbitai review to trigger an incremental review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai full review to do a full review from scratch and review all the files again.
  • @coderabbitai summary to regenerate the summary of the PR.
  • @coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
  • @coderabbitai configuration to show the current CodeRabbit configuration for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai help to get help.

Additionally, you can add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.

CodeRabbit Configration File (.coderabbit.yaml)

  • You can programmatically configure CodeRabbit by adding a .coderabbit.yaml file to the root of your repository.
  • Please see the configuration documentation for more information.
  • If your editor has YAML language server enabled, you can add the path at the top of this file to enable auto-completion and validation: # yaml-language-server: $schema=https://coderabbit.ai/integrations/schema.v2.json

Documentation and Community

  • Visit our Documentation for detailed information on how to use CodeRabbit.
  • Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.
  • Follow us on X/Twitter for updates and announcements.

@albinAppsmith albinAppsmith added the ok-to-test Required label for CI label Jul 11, 2024
@github-actions github-actions bot added the Bug Something isn't working label Jul 11, 2024
Copy link
Contributor

@coderabbitai coderabbitai bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Actionable comments posted: 0

Review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL

Commits

Files that changed from the base of the PR and between b8f161c and efa6f0e.

Files selected for processing (1)
  • app/client/cypress/support/commands.js (1 hunks)
Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (1)
  • app/client/cypress/support/commands.js

Copy link
Contributor

@coderabbitai coderabbitai bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Actionable comments posted: 0

Review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL

Commits

Files that changed from the base of the PR and between b8f161c and efa6f0e.

Files selected for processing (1)
  • app/client/cypress/support/commands.js (1 hunks)
Additional context used
Path-based instructions (1)
app/client/cypress/support/commands.js (1)

Pattern app/client/cypress/**/**.*: Follow best practices for Cypress code and e2e automation.
Avoid using cy.wait in code.
Avoid using cy.pause in code.
Use variables for locators, not strings.
Use data-* attributes for selectors; avoid Xpaths and CSS attributes.
Avoid selectors like .btn.submit or button[type=submit].
Perform logins via API with LoginFromAPI.
Only interact with controlled sites/servers.
Ensure tests can run with it.only and are independent.
Use before, beforeEach, after, afterEach correctly; clean state before tests.
Check new specs for flakiness by running them 10 times on CI.
Use multiple assertions; don't treat Cypress as unit tests.
Use constants for strings.
Include datasource operations in before hooks.

Additional comments not posted (1)
app/client/cypress/support/commands.js (1)

Line range hint 361-363:
LGTM! But verify the command usage in the codebase.

The removal of the click action simplifies the command and is approved.

However, ensure that all usages of NavigateToJSEditor are still functioning correctly without the click action.

@ApekshaBhosale
Copy link
Contributor

@albinAppsmith can you please check if anything breaks on EE because of this change. it is a common file change hence

@albinAppsmith
Copy link
Contributor Author

@albinAppsmith can you please check if anything breaks on EE because of this change. it is a common file change hence

@ApekshaBhosale Here is the PR in EE. Ran AccessControl tests here. Do you think I should run all tests there?

@albinAppsmith albinAppsmith requested a review from hetunandu July 11, 2024 08:03
@albinAppsmith albinAppsmith merged commit 36c1e01 into release Jul 11, 2024
@albinAppsmith albinAppsmith deleted the tbd-failure-ide-search branch July 11, 2024 08:22
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

Bug Something isn't working ok-to-test Required label for CI

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants