-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4.2k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Block Directory: Store refactor #22388
Conversation
Size Change: -126 B (0%) Total Size: 1.12 MB
ℹ️ View Unchanged
|
packages/block-directory/src/components/downloadable-blocks-list/index.js
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Awesome. Thanks for the taking the time.
I left a few comments on choices the code already makes. They are not necessary for merge, but worth discussing in the context of a refactor.
You have this as a draft PR, what else do you plan on refactoring? |
a85c0b9
to
2417257
Compare
I wanted to rebase it after #20001 was merged. Now that's done, so this is ready for review. I also refactored some of the components & tests (like |
Just nothing here that the API has some issues that cause This is the result: |
@StevenDufresne do you know what API route was called that ended up triggering that error? Want to make sure it gets corrected. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@StevenDufresne do you know what API route was called that ended up triggering that error? Want to make sure it gets corrected.
This was the result of the plugin already being installed -> /install
.
I'm certain it's the result of new
missing from WP_Error
statements.
const response = yield apiFetch( { | ||
path: '__experimental/block-directory/install', | ||
data: { | ||
slug: id, | ||
}, | ||
method: 'POST', | ||
} ); | ||
if ( response.success === false ) { | ||
if ( response.success !== true ) { | ||
throw new Error( response.errorMessage ); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I tested locally, if the length of this error message is < 1
, no error message will be displayed.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I wonder if we should consider a default error message?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Added the oh-so-descriptive "An error occurred." as a default. Hopefully we'll have error content for most detectable errors, so no one will see this 🙂
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
If an error occurs here it'd be a proper REST API error response. AFAIK, that throws. I don't think this code path could get executed. Am I missing something?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yeah, this would probably never be executed (and if it is, errorMessage wouldn't exist) — but it could if the response from the server was malformed somehow, or the API endpoint could change to return failure info. I've updated it to show a default message, and we can look at removing it if needed when the API settles some.
Looks good. |
Includes very basic testing, since I'm having trouble with both promises and document mocking
This walks through each step, and removes the need for onError & onSuccess
This will let us return more descriptive error messages for each kind of error, instead of generic install/download failed messages
Co-authored-by: Steven Dufresne <[email protected]>
Behavior is tested in DownloadableBlockListItem tests
This prevents an error where `onSelect` tries to run on a block that fails to install
6253471
to
4c406fc
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm good with the changes.
Description
data-controls
, which cuts downcontrols
to just theLOAD_ASSETS
actioninstallBlockType
action generator, which walks through each step. This avoids needing to add extra logic into thewithDispatch
for error/success callbacksHow has this been tested?
I've added tests for actions, reducers, selectors, and to some extent the controls helpers. I also did some quick browser-testing— this removes any error notices (because of the switch in 20001), so it's not ready to merge until that's done.
Checklist: