fix: stop filing Anvil applications under "AI Agents", rename them "responsive"

app/client/src/ce/constants/messages.ts

@@ -219,10 +219,17 @@ export const FIXED_APPLICATIONS = () => `Classic Applications`;
 export const AI_AGENTS_APPLICATIONS = () => `AI Agents`;
 export const AI_APPLICATION_CARD_LIST_ZERO_STATE = () =>
   `There are no AI Agents in this workspace.`;
-export const ANVIL_APPLICATIONS = () => `Anvil apps`;
+// User-facing label for the ANVIL layout system is "Responsive" (APP-15954).
+// The internal name stays "Anvil" everywhere — the persisted
+// appPositioning.type == ANVIL enum, LayoutSystemTypes.ANVIL, the feature flags
+// and the module paths are unchanged.
+// Sentence case and "applications" (not "Apps") to match every sibling on the
+// same screen — APPLICATIONS, NEW_APP, APPLICATION_CARD_LIST_ZERO_STATE.
+// "responsive" stays lowercase mid-sentence: it is a descriptor, not a brand.
+export const ANVIL_APPLICATIONS = () => `Responsive applications`;
 export const ANVIL_APPLICATION_CARD_LIST_ZERO_STATE = () =>
-  `There are no Anvil apps in this workspace yet.`;
-export const NEW_ANVIL_APP = () => `Anvil app`;
+  `There are no responsive applications in this workspace.`;
+export const NEW_ANVIL_APP = () => `Responsive application`;
 export const AI_AGENT_AUTH_SUBTITLE = () =>
   `Sign up with any Google account.\n Support for email will be available soon.`;
 

app/client/src/ce/pages/Applications/index.tsx

@@ -8,8 +8,6 @@ import {
 } from "ee/actions/workspaceActions";
 import type { UpdateApplicationPayload } from "ee/api/ApplicationApi";
 import {
-  AI_AGENTS_APPLICATIONS,
-  AI_APPLICATION_CARD_LIST_ZERO_STATE,
   ANVIL_APPLICATIONS,
   ANVIL_APPLICATION_CARD_LIST_ZERO_STATE,
   APPLICATIONS,
@@ -1088,23 +1086,30 @@ export function ApplicationsSection(props: any) {
                   applications={anvilApplications}
                   canInviteToWorkspace={canInviteToWorkspace}
                   deleteApplication={deleteApplication}
-                  emptyStateMessage={
-                    isAiAgentFlowEnabled
-                      ? createMessage(AI_APPLICATION_CARD_LIST_ZERO_STATE)
-                      : createMessage(ANVIL_APPLICATION_CARD_LIST_ZERO_STATE)
-                  }
+                  emptyStateMessage={createMessage(
+                    ANVIL_APPLICATION_CARD_LIST_ZERO_STATE,
+                  )}
                   enableImportExport={enableImportExport}
                   hasCreateNewApplicationPermission={
                     hasCreateNewApplicationPermission
                   }
                   hasManageWorkspacePermissions={hasManageWorkspacePermissions}
                   isMobile={isMobile}
                   onClickAddNewButton={onClickAddNewAppButton}
-                  title={createMessage(
-                    isAiAgentFlowEnabled
-                      ? AI_AGENTS_APPLICATIONS
-                      : ANVIL_APPLICATIONS,
-                  )}
+                  // This list holds ANVIL-layout applications, so it is titled
+                  // for them regardless of the AI-agent flag — they were never
+                  // AI agents, they were only filed under that heading because
+                  // the flag was on (APP-15954).
+                  //
+                  // NOTE: the render gate on this block is NOT correct and is
+                  // not fixed here. `isAnvilEnabled` resolves via
+                  // getIsAnvilLayoutEnabled, which reads the RETIRED
+                  // release_anvil_enabled flag — never served, so always false in
+                  // production. The gate therefore collapses to
+                  // isAiAgentFlowEnabled alone, and an org licensed for Anvil but
+                  // without the AI-agent flag never sees this section at all.
+                  // Tracked separately; see APP-15950.
+                  title={createMessage(ANVIL_APPLICATIONS)}
                   titleTag={PreviewTag}
                   updateApplicationDispatch={updateApplicationDispatch}
                   workspaceId={activeWorkspace.id}

app/client/src/ce/pages/Applications/tests/ApplicationsSection.test.tsx

@@ -0,0 +1,162 @@
+import React from "react";
+import { render, screen } from "@testing-library/react";
+import { Provider } from "react-redux";
+import { ThemeProvider } from "styled-components";
+import "@testing-library/jest-dom";
+
+import store from "store";
+import { lightTheme } from "selectors/themeSelectors";
+import { LayoutSystemTypes } from "layoutSystems/types";
+import { PERMISSION_TYPE } from "ee/utils/permissionHelpers";
+import type { ApplicationPayload } from "entities/Application";
+import type { Workspace } from "ee/constants/workspaceConstants";
+import { ApplicationsSection } from "../index";
+
+// Force the AI-agent FLOW flag (license_ai_agent_enabled) ON. This is the exact
+// state that produced APP-15954: with the flag on, the ANVIL application list
+// was titled "AI Agents". The INSTANCE flag is left real — it gates the sibling
+// classic-application list, which this file does not exercise.
+jest.mock("ee/selectors/aiAgentSelectors", () => ({
+  __esModule: true,
+  ...jest.requireActual("ee/selectors/aiAgentSelectors"),
+  getIsAiAgentFlowEnabled: jest.fn(() => true),
+}));
+
+// Keep the retired Anvil layout flag OFF so the AI-agent flag is the *only*
+// thing rendering the ANVIL list. That is the reported configuration, and it
+// means the assertions below cannot be satisfied by an unrelated code path.
+jest.mock("layoutSystems/anvil/integrations/selectors", () => ({
+  __esModule: true,
+  ...jest.requireActual("layoutSystems/anvil/integrations/selectors"),
+  getIsAnvilLayoutEnabled: jest.fn(() => false),
+}));
+
+// Everything below is page chrome that has nothing to do with the title
+// decision under test. ApplicationCardList and CardList are deliberately NOT
+// mocked: the heading has to be produced by the real render chain, otherwise
+// this asserts the stub instead of the product.
+jest.mock("ee/pages/Applications/WorkspaceAction", () => ({
+  __esModule: true,
+  default: () => null,
+}));
+jest.mock("ee/pages/Applications/WorkspaceMenu", () => ({
+  __esModule: true,
+  default: () => null,
+}));
+jest.mock("ee/pages/Applications/PackageCardList", () => ({
+  __esModule: true,
+  default: () => null,
+}));
+jest.mock("ee/pages/Applications/WorkflowCardList", () => ({
+  __esModule: true,
+  default: () => null,
+}));
+jest.mock("pages/common/ImportModal", () => ({
+  __esModule: true,
+  default: () => null,
+}));
+jest.mock("pages/common/SharedUserList", () => ({
+  __esModule: true,
+  default: () => null,
+}));
+jest.mock("pages/Editor/gitSync/ReconnectDatasourceModal", () => ({
+  __esModule: true,
+  default: () => null,
+}));
+jest.mock(
+  "../CreateNewAppFromTemplateModal/CreateNewAppFromTemplatesWrapper",
+  () => ({
+    __esModule: true,
+    default: () => null,
+  }),
+);
+// ce/pages/Applications/ApplicationCardList imports NoAppsFound back out of
+// ee/pages/Applications, which re-exports this very module — a require cycle
+// that jest cannot resolve. Stubbing the barrel breaks it, exactly as
+// ee/pages/Applications/PackageCardList.test.tsx does.
+jest.mock("ee/pages/Applications", () => ({
+  __esModule: true,
+  // TODO: Fix this the next time the file is edited
+  // eslint-disable-next-line @typescript-eslint/no-explicit-any
+  NoAppsFound: ({ children }: any) => <div>{children}</div>,
+}));
+jest.mock("pages/Applications/ApplicationCard", () => ({
+  __esModule: true,
+  // TODO: Fix this the next time the file is edited
+  // eslint-disable-next-line @typescript-eslint/no-explicit-any
+  default: ({ application }: any) => <div>{application.name}</div>,
+}));
+
+const WORKSPACE_ID = "test-workspace";
+
+const workspace = {
+  id: WORKSPACE_ID,
+  name: "Test Workspace",
+  userPermissions: [
+    PERMISSION_TYPE.MANAGE_WORKSPACE,
+    PERMISSION_TYPE.CREATE_APPLICATION,
+  ],
+} as unknown as Workspace;
+
+const anvilApplication = {
+  id: "anvil-app-1",
+  name: "Anvil App 1",
+  workspaceId: WORKSPACE_ID,
+  applicationDetail: {
+    appPositioning: { type: LayoutSystemTypes.ANVIL },
+  },
+} as unknown as ApplicationPayload;
+
+const classicApplication = {
+  id: "classic-app-1",
+  name: "Classic App 1",
+  workspaceId: WORKSPACE_ID,
+  applicationDetail: {
+    appPositioning: { type: LayoutSystemTypes.FIXED },
+  },
+} as unknown as ApplicationPayload;
+
+const NO_PACKAGES: never[] = [];
+const NO_WORKFLOWS: never[] = [];
+const WORKSPACES = [workspace];
+
+const renderApplicationsSection = (applications: ApplicationPayload[]) =>
+  render(
+    <ThemeProvider theme={lightTheme}>
+      <Provider store={store}>
+        <ApplicationsSection
+          activeWorkspaceId={WORKSPACE_ID}
+          applications={applications}
+          packages={NO_PACKAGES}
+          workflows={NO_WORKFLOWS}
+          workspaces={WORKSPACES}
+        />
+      </Provider>
+    </ThemeProvider>,
+  );
+
+describe("ApplicationsSection - ANVIL application list heading (APP-15954)", () => {
+  it("titles the ANVIL application list 'Responsive applications', not 'AI Agents', when the AI-agent flow flag is on", () => {
+    renderApplicationsSection([anvilApplication, classicApplication]);
+
+    // The ANVIL application is listed...
+    expect(screen.getByText("Anvil App 1")).toBeInTheDocument();
+    // ...under the responsive heading...
+    expect(screen.getByText("Responsive applications")).toBeInTheDocument();
+    // ...and never under the AI Agents heading, which is what users reported.
+    expect(screen.queryByText("AI Agents")).not.toBeInTheDocument();
+  });
+
+  it("uses the responsive empty-state copy when the workspace has no ANVIL applications", () => {
+    renderApplicationsSection([classicApplication]);
+
+    expect(
+      screen.getByText(
+        "There are no responsive applications in this workspace.",
+      ),
+    ).toBeInTheDocument();
+    expect(
+      screen.queryByText("There are no AI Agents in this workspace."),
+    ).not.toBeInTheDocument();
+  });
+});