Block Bindings: Don't provide default canUserEditValue in reducer
#63628
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
|
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. |
canUserEditValuecanUserEditValue in reducer
64 tasks
|
Size Change: 0 B Total Size: 1.75 MB
ℹ️ View Unchanged
|
ockham
reviewed
Jul 17, 2024
| @@ -1607,7 +1607,7 @@ describe( 'blocks', () => { | |||
| expect( source.setValue ).toBeUndefined(); | |||
| expect( source.setValues ).toBeUndefined(); | |||
| expect( source.getPlaceholder ).toBeUndefined(); | |||
| expect( source.canUserEditValue() ).toBe( false ); | |||
| expect( source.canUserEditValue ).toBeUndefined(); | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There's also .toBeFalsy() (which is a slightly looser assertion and would work both with and without the other changes in this PR, thus "bridging" the change).
It's also a really small detail, so feel free to ignore 🤷♂️
Suggested change
| expect( source.canUserEditValue ).toBeUndefined(); | |
| expect( source.canUserEditValue ).toBeFalsy(); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I didn't know about that, thanks for the tip 🙂 On the other hand, I prefer keeping it undefined to keep consistency with the rest of the properties, and because it is actually expected to be undefined and not false after these changes.
ockham
approved these changes
Jul 17, 2024
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I tested this by changing the Post Meta source's canUserEditValue() value to return false. That change is respected in all of the covered cases 👍
However, tangentially related to this PR, I also tested setting the Pattern Override source's canUserEditValue() to be false, and it had no effect, both on this branch and on trunk. Is that expected?
Lastly, the button's rel attribute was not affected by the locking mechanism, and I realized it's because we actually never added locking logic to the button's rel attribute. Shall we open a separate issue for that?
ff9d6df to
cc425c3
Compare
I believe it is not expected, although it isn't a big deal because pattern overrides are expected to be editable. If I am not mistaken, it is because we are not considering the
I would consider this a different issue not related to this pull request. If I am understanding it correctly, it is already present in |
|
Flaky tests detected in cc425c3. 🔍 Workflow run URL: https://github.com/WordPress/gutenberg/actions/runs/10006015082
|
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?
This was suggested here by @gziolo .
Right now, we define a default function that returns
falsein the reducer to ensure that sources are not editable unless explicitly specified. However, I believe we can avoid that and just not calling the function when it is undefined.Why?
To keep consistency with the rest of the properties that don't have a default value.
How?
I changed where we are calling
canUserEditValueto be called conditionally. If it is not defined, it will return undefined, which will lock the editing anyways.Testing Instructions
canUserEditare editable. These should be tested by post-meta and pattern-overrides.canUserEditshould be locked. This should be covered in this test.