Block Bindings: Allow label override when it is defined in client registration #66160
Conversation
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
SantosGuillamot
added
[Type] Bug
SantosGuillamot
requested review from
gziolo,
artemiomorales and
cbravobernal
|
The following accounts have interacted with this PR and/or linked issues. I will continue to update these lists as activity occurs. You can also manually ask me to refresh this list by adding the If you're merging code through a pull request on GitHub, copy and paste the following into the bottom of the merge commit message. To understand the WordPress project's expectations around crediting contributors, please review the Contributor Attribution page in the Core Handbook. |
|
Size Change: -3 B (0%) Total Size: 1.77 MB
ℹ️ View Unchanged
|
|
Flaky tests detected in b19618b. 🔍 Workflow run URL: https://github.com/WordPress/gutenberg/actions/runs/11361922364
|
cbravobernal
dismissed
their stale review
Having errors on local environment.
cbravobernal
approved these changes
Oct 16, 2024
cbravobernal
deleted the
fix/allow-label-override-in-bindings-registration
branch
|
There was a conflict while trying to cherry-pick the commit to the wp/6.7 branch. Please resolve the conflict manually and create a PR to the wp/6.7 branch. PRs to wp/6.7 are similar to PRs to trunk, but you should base your PR on the wp/6.7 branch instead of trunk. |
|
@cbravobernal Looks like this didn't apply cleanly. If you'd like it included in RC 1 then would you like to manually backport this by Monday morning UTC (as that's when I'll be cutting the packages for the release)? Much appreciated. |
SantosGuillamot
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 18, 2024
…istration (#66160) * Change registration to override label * Change unit test * Compare label values * Keep server value if client is not defined * Add unit test to ensure server label persists Co-authored-by: SantosGuillamot <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: cbravobernal <[email protected]>
|
I've started a pull request to handle the manual cherry-pick: #66237 |
cbravobernal
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 18, 2024
…istration (#66160) (#66237) * Change registration to override label * Change unit test * Compare label values * Keep server value if client is not defined * Add unit test to ensure server label persists Co-authored-by: SantosGuillamot <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: cbravobernal <[email protected]>
|
The manual cherry-pick has been merged. I'm changing the labels to reflect that. |
SantosGuillamot
added
Backported to WP Core
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
What?
As discussed here, and reported in other places, there are some concerns about not registering a source when the label is both defined in the server and in the client.
In this pull request, I'm fixing the behavior by overriding the label with the value coming from the client. From the feedback received, this should be the expected behavior.
There are mainly two questions:
Why?
The current behavior is confusing for users.
How?
For the moment, I kept the warning but register the source anyway, with the client value prevailing. Happy to make any changes based on discussions.
Testing Instructions
I've updated the unit tests to reflect this. To test manually: