-
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
Merge inner blocks if wrappers are equal #43181
Merged
Merged
Changes from 7 commits
Commits
Show all changes
8 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
39d5871
Merge inner blocks if wrapper are equal
ellatrix 91c3ced
Fix list v2
ellatrix e794fb3
Add e2e test
ellatrix 2f12e72
Fix test and add forward delete
ellatrix 6dda8da
Add forward merge for end of inner blocks
ellatrix b84d5fb
Fix forward merge with equal root
ellatrix 75604a0
Fix e2e test, add comments
ellatrix e392ed9
Adjust block switcher e2e test
ellatrix File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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.
You raise an interesting question here. What led you to this check? For me, the first scenario that came to mind was merging between a UL and a OL. I first expected to just merge (i.e. skip this check), but on the other hand the way that Backspace unwraps the LI first means that the next Backspace will be very obvious (merge into the prev list, regardless of UL/OL).
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.
Yes, not sure if we should keep this check or not. This is generalised for all wrapper blocks. If two quotes have an empty or same citation, they can be merged, otherwise not. If two group blocks have the same background color, they can be merged, otherwise not. But you could also make the case that we should just merge them regardless of attributes, and maybe keep the attributes of the currently selected block.
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.
At the risk of overpinging, @jasmussen might be someone who cares about these details like we do. :)
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 have this feeling — and correct me if I'm off beat here — that there's already a great deal of complexity around this handling. In that light, I would err on the sake of simplicity, and only add checks when we know we need them.
In this case, by having a singular merging behavior — allowing it regardless of props set — we'd also never run into the question of "why did it work this one time, but not that other"?
Not a strong opinion, but it's one that makes me lean towards starting with less.
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.
For me that's fine if we're ok with the potential content loss. E.g. if we're merging two quotes with cites, the cite of the quote we're merging will be lost. Is that ok? I added these checks because I though that's not ok.