Mark FSE blocks as non experimental#35979
Conversation
noisysocks
added
[Feature] Blocks
noisysocks
requested review from
TimothyBJacobs,
adamziel,
ajitbohra,
draganescu,
getdave,
kevin940726,
spacedmonkey,
talldan and
tellthemachines
as code owners
| table, | ||
| // tableOfContents, | ||
| tagCloud, | ||
| templatePart, // TODO: Should this be site editor only? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm not sure about this one. We could potentially move it to packages/edit-site if we feel that it's not useful outside of the site editor.
|
Size Change: +1.2 kB (0%) Total Size: 1.08 MB
ℹ️ View Unchanged
|
| postComments, | ||
| postCommentsCount, | ||
| postCommentsForm, | ||
| postCommentsLink, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm not certain but I think some of these comments block (not all of them) were supposed to be replaced by a "Query" block like version. So not all of them might need to move to Core as stable. cc @c4rl0sbr4v0 @ntsekouras
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think we lean to remove the PostComment in favor of the Comments Loop, but in general there's a lot of activity in changing these blocks and I'm not 100% sure if all of them are ready to be included in core.
Maybe @gziolo or @michalczaplinski could share their thoughts (or ping the right people) about their status.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We plan to completely deprecate the Post Comment (postComment) block that is going to be replaced with the Comment Template block (WIP #35231) that is going to be composed of inner blocks like Comment Author (postcommentAuthor), Comment Content (postCommentContent) or Comment Date (postCommentDate). There are other similar blocks that have just landed or will land this week. All those blocks aren't very useful without the Comment Query Loop block that might land this week with #35231 as well, but it was never tested in the plugin and it's far from the feature parity that the Query Loop block has.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I see that @kjellr shared a list of blocks used in the Twenty Twenty-Two theme in #35979 (comment). The only block listed here is the Post Comments block (postComments). I think it would be reasonable to move only this single block out of the experimental phase. It's a simpler wrapper for comments_template() PHP function call.
I don't know about Post Comments Count or Post Comments Link blocks, but they might be useful to use with Query Loop and Post Template blocks.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't think we should make stable postComments as it relies on php template. In my mind this block will be removed when the Comments Loop will mature more.
Also should we consider making the renames of the comment blocks (loose the post prefix) before landing in core?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't think we should make stable postComments as it relies on php template. In my mind this block will be removed when the Comments Loop will mature more.
How will we support Twenty Twenty-two then?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think the idea is that 2022 uses Comments Loop instead?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You're right! Twenty Twenty-two will be in core as well 😄
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Comments Loop block is still in progress: #35231. It's very basic and it doesn't support yet nested comments and pagination. It's hard to tell how much work is still necessary to bring feature parity with what comments_template() does.
| ...( enableFSEBlocks | ||
| ? [ | ||
| templatePart, | ||
| postAuthor, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I know that the post author has been removed from the 5.8 release because it was deemed not ready (as not flexible enough for all use cases and user-* blocks were being considered), that said, it seems too late to replace at the moment for 5.9, so maybe it's fine to land this one as (as a simple opinionated one) and add the more flexible ones later. cc @mtias
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm also hesitant that we need more granular ones. As long as you can show / hide avatar and show / hide name it seems you can do a lot with it. If you want to show avatar and name in different layouts you can add two author blocks with different settings.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Interesting thoughts @mtias. We have more granular blocks for the Comment Template block:
- Comment Author
- Comment Author Avatar
Should we consolidate them?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm not sure :) There are some tradeoffs to both approaches.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah, either way we need a way to display the post author in 5.9. 😄 I think the current one is workable if we want to just continue iterating on it.
|
Pinging @kjellr here to check what blocks are mandatory for 2022 and what's the story for comments and post author blocks. |
Here are all the blocks we're currently using for Twenty Twenty-Two. I don't expect that we'll be adding any more of the experimental blocks:
We are using the post author block, but all we actually display is the author name:
For comments, we use only the Post Comments block. It's working well for us after this recent change: #35743 |
noisysocks
force-pushed
the
update/mark-fse-blocks-as-non-experimental
branch
2 times, most recently
from
1b6b655 to
f9b13a2
Compare
|
Thanks everyone! I updated it so that we're only marking the blocks that are used by Twenty Twenty-two as stable:
|
noisysocks
force-pushed
the
update/mark-fse-blocks-as-non-experimental
branch
from
f9b13a2 to
4a0fae2
Compare
|
I've updated this so that Post Comments remains experimental. Instead, we have Comments Query Loop as of #35231. |
noisysocks
force-pushed
the
update/mark-fse-blocks-as-non-experimental
branch
from
4a0fae2 to
a964f1f
Compare
|
@noisysocks I have some questions about the plan for comments related blocks in core 5.9:
|
As noted by Greg above the Comments Query Loop block is still very basic and IMHO is not ready to be included in 5.9. It doesn't support nested comments, pagination and is not very well tested. I am not very familiar with how the "old" Post Comments block was working in the twenty-twentytwo theme but I think that we should stick with it and not move the Comments Query Loop out of experimental status yet. |
|
Hi @michalczaplinski, thanks for letting me know. Looks like I made the wrong call here. Happy to defer to you on the readiness of Comments Query Loop. I'll open a PR which marks Post Comments as stable (included in WP 5.9) and Comments Query Loop as experimental (plugin only). We can deprecate Post Comments in a future release (e.g. WP 6.0). |
|
Answering @jffng's questions for clarity:
The plan is now to include Post Comments in WP 5.9. Comments Query Loop will only be available in the plugin.
Twenty Twenty-two can continue to use Post Comments to achieve this. Post Comments Form will not be available in WP 5.9.
None of these blocks will now be included in WP 5.9. |
|
Thank you for clarifying @noisysocks ! |
youknowriad
left a comment
youknowriad
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There's a subtle change that we missed in this PR:
The blocks that were moved were not made available in "widgets", "navigation" screens, they were also not available in the "post editor" if the theme didn't have "block templates" support. (enableFSEBlocks flag)
But my moving them without the check, we made these blocks available in all of these situations, maybe it's fine but I wanted to confirm that it's what we want. and if it's the case we should probably remove the enableFSEBlocks flag entirely.
(To clarify we probably did the same mistake on WP 5.8 when we moved some of the similar blocks)
8 participants
Description
Grab bag of plugin changes needed ahead of WP 5.9.
__experimentalRegisterExperimentalCoreBlockstoregisterCoreBlocks.Removes__experimentalRegisterExperimentalCoreBlocksas there are no more experimental blocks.RemovesGUTENBERG_PHASEchecks no longer needed for WP 5.9.gutenberg_. It did not work correctly when the function declaration is indented, causing duplicate function errors if you run the plugin against WP 5.9.How has this been tested?
Checklist:
*.native.jsfiles for terms that need renaming or removal).