Modifying blocks in flyout does not move following blocks

[BeksOmega]

Describe the bug

If you modify a block in a simple toolbox (ie just a flyout) such that the size of the block gets larger, the blocks following that block do not move, so you can get weird overlaps.

Similarly, the blocks do not move closer together if the size of a block gets smaller.

To Reproduce

Steps to reproduce the behavior:

1. Go to the advanced playground, change it to the simple toolbox with a horizontal layout.
2. Type a bunch of numbers into the repeat block's shadow.
3. Observe how the blocks collide with eachother.

Expected behavior

I think blocks following the repeat block should move so you don't get any overlaps.

Screenshots

[cpcallen]

Is it intended that blocks in the toolbox be modifiable?

[BeksOmega]

Is it intended that blocks in the toolbox be modifiable?

I'm not sure, but I think so. That way if you're adding a bunch of the same block to the workspace (eg adding x2 modifiers all over the place) you can just modify the block in the toolbox, instead of every individual block.

Another solution might be to make the flyout workspace editable=false, but that could run into #2285. I think if you drag a block from a non-editable flyout, the resulting workspace block would still be non-editable because of how the blocks are serialized and then deserialized to create them (idk though I haven't tested it). We could ignore the editable property for blocks in flyouts specifically, but then that would break people who have intentionally added non-editable blocks to the flyout haha (like string constants or something).

[alschmiedt]

I think this has a pretty concrete use case and would feel uncomfortable taking it out at this point.

Just to note it looks like the behavior for vertical flyouts is reasonable (it expands the flyout to a max width) and this is only a problem for horizontal flyouts.

[BeksOmega]

I think it may also be a problem with vertical flyouts if a field changes the height of a block (eg the multiline text field) but I don't have time to test it at the moment :/