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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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
Add the Block Bindings API #5888
Add the Block Bindings API #5888
Changes from 52 commits
8720e12
8891169
eac5b22
39e52ed
82e70ff
6486471
048330e
4a4b825
9a662e4
c92b6ac
abb56fb
e8b1195
cc6c2c2
206b6b7
dc8377a
751a459
423bb66
d1b0d2e
9f2274d
02f0ea3
9303e02
30f4ed7
940fb82
dbda027
34d9dd7
74bfae7
013535e
89e9833
0c931e0
7b1ebe2
b0c300f
e0b3883
2900bf5
26da23e
29213d8
4c3d892
06a3930
f53121d
5b8eb4a
45a96f8
08ddb0a
3a16941
1729f65
9ea2c9a
fd090ab
6ea69cd
15dea88
5893867
d10b165
c324e65
a0d550a
3f242d3
d202e5d
2a20dee
2b4cf33
8604e82
65a7c09
1ceef1b
3d97457
5f397aa
f2a611b
a1e1bac
26571a7
d189f50
d7201ce
69ed754
951ca16
f10a4fe
0bec833
3134faa
9491be3
c95b92f
3619e18
c8232ac
871cedc
604f7a2
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
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.
Do we have use-cases where the post id is an attribute and not something in the context?
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.
@SantosGuillamot might know better. I would assume we rather read it from the context or other block attributes through
$block_instance
param.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.
The idea was to allow people to select a specific ID to connect to. So, instead of connecting to the post title of the context, you connect to a specific post title.
I added it more as an example of other attributes that could make sense at some point.
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 think there might be a bug here.
Instead of completely omitting the usage of the $block_instance->context['postId'] here, we should check if the value isset and if so use it over the ID we get from
get_the_ID
.Something like 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.
I also wonder if we should always use the context here. as if I'm not wrong the default context should be set as
get_the_ID
if there's no parent query 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.
From what I tested,
$block_instance->context
is an empty array for the heading, button, and image block, so that's why we couldn't get thepostId
from there. Is that not expected?We could definitely use the conditional suggested. However, I'd like to understand if just using
$block_instance->context
should work.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.
Maybe we have an issue somewhere but in the client the block context has some "default context values" like the post ID if I'm not wrong, and in the server you're saying that these are not present. IMO, the block context should be the same for the client and the server.
I think it's fine if we defer the potential fix to a dedicated issue but we might want to track it somewhere.
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.
@SantosGuillamot @gziolo Heads up here --
This is lacking any access rights checks and finding/fixing this now means we avoid having to patch the eventual release. If someone provides any post ID, it could pull meta for any post ID of any post type of any status including password-protected posts.
Something like this could help, maybe only in the conditional above where a custom post ID is set but to be safe we could have it here before the return.
We may also want to check whether the associated post type is public + publicly_queryable to ensure that we follow the same constraints established by the Query Loop block for dynamically embedding a list posts themselves.
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.
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.
In the block editor itself, this logic runs through the REST API which already does this sort of logic.
This only impacts the render on the server-side.
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.
@sc0ttkclark That makes sense to me. I added the permissions check in f53121d and had to check the post status too to make sure it works as intended.
(Pardon the PHPCS errors — those have all been fixed in later commits)
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.
Following up on this on the line where this was implemented: https://github.com/WordPress/wordpress-develop/pull/5888/files#r1471516195
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.
get_tag()
doesn't take any argument, and it could returnNULL
, which would throw an error when passed as the first argument ofstrcasecmp
. I think we should guard against it first.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.
There is currently an error being triggered in
trunk
:To reproduce:
Preview the post
Expected: The preview should show the heading with the text 'override'
Actual: It still shows 'default' and the above error is shown
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 believe having something like this should solve the issue:
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.
when using
next_tag()
we will always get a string forget_tag()
unless no tag was found.it would be better to check the result of
next_tag()
so we don't descend into this function as if a tag were matched.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.
seek()
could returnfalse
which means we fail to seek the bookmark. This could happen when we reach the end the of input.I think there's currently a bug in
WP_HTML_Tag_Processor
API thatseek()
afternext_tag()
won't correctly put the cursor at the right place.For instance, I expect the above snippet to output
true
andH2
, but instead it outputsfalse
andNULL
. @dmsnell might know better if it's a bug or not 🙇.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.
@kevin940726, what was the user interaction, and what HTML was saved for the block that triggered the issue? It's a great opportunity to add a unit test that will help fix the issue.
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 left some further details on the comment above - #5888 (comment)
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.
thanks for the find @kevin940726 - pushed out #6021 to fix it.
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.
@kevin940726 fixed in
trunk
now 👍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.
Updated this line because the unit tests fail otherwise. That's because in this PR we're also registering
core/post-meta
andcore/pattern-attributes
sources.