Pattern Overrides: Infer partial syncing supported blocks from the server#72391
Closed
Pattern Overrides: Infer partial syncing supported blocks from the server#72391
Conversation
ockham
added
[Type] Enhancement
|
Size Change: -14 B (0%) Total Size: 2.08 MB
ℹ️ View Unchanged
|
ockham
force-pushed
the
remove/partial-syncing-supported-blocks-constant
branch
from
41f6d03 to
aec4884
Compare
31 tasks
ockham
force-pushed
the
remove/partial-syncing-supported-blocks-constant
branch
from
aec4884 to
a11bf3e
Compare
|
Flaky tests detected in a11bf3e. 🔍 Workflow run URL: https://github.com/WordPress/gutenberg/actions/runs/18591284237
|
github-project-automation
bot
moved this to 🔎 Needs Review
in WordPress 6.9 Editor Tasks
ockham
requested review from
ajitbohra,
fabiankaegy and
juanmaguitar
as code owners
|
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. |
Comment on lines
+176
to
+184
| const { getSettings } = select( blockEditorStore ); | ||
| // For editing link to the site editor if the theme and user permissions support it. | ||
| return { | ||
| onNavigateToEntityRecord: getSettings().onNavigateToEntityRecord, | ||
| hasPatternOverridesSource: !! getBlockBindingsSource( | ||
| 'core/pattern-overrides' | ||
| ), | ||
| supportedBlockTypes: Object.keys( | ||
| getSettings().__experimentalBlockBindingsSupportedAttributes || |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should we move this to private context too?
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I thought that concept was limited to the block-editor package, and we're here in block-library 🤔
Comment on lines
-20
to
-23
| 'core/paragraph': [ 'content' ], | ||
| 'core/heading': [ 'content' ], | ||
| 'core/button': [ 'text', 'url', 'linkTarget', 'rel' ], | ||
| 'core/image': [ 'id', 'url', 'title', 'alt' ], |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is this variable exact the same that the the one that __experimentalBlockBindingsSupportedAttributes returns, right?
Just double-checking. We may have supported attributes that don't allow partial sync yet.
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It's no longer the exact same since we haven't updated PARTIAL_SYNCING_SUPPORTED_BLOCKS in a while 🤔 __experimentalBlockBindingsSupportedAttributes now includes the blocks and attributes for which we added BB support during the 6.9 cycle, including core/image's caption, and the core/post-date (datetime), core/navigation-link (url), and core/navigation-submenu (url) blocks: https://github.com/WordPress/wordpress-develop/blob/98700280f1f2f7420c84fc8ec859ace3ae7d04eb/src/wp-includes/block-bindings.php#L142-L148
I was assuming pattern overrides would work for every attribute that's supported by block bindings, but maybe that's incorrect? 🤔
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It's better to test them. As they may cause unwanted side effects like we saw with the cover block 😓
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do you know how we can test them? 😅
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Manually. I'm doing right now 😆
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Manually. I'm doing right now 😆
Edit: Not really sure about how to test the navigation ones.
Contributor
|
Let's move this PR to a future iteration. As it conflicts with the navigation binding. |
cbravobernal
moved this from 🔎 Needs Review
to 🦵 Punted to 7.0
in WordPress 6.9 Editor Tasks
Contributor
Author
|
Punting this. |
github-project-automation
bot
moved this from 🦵 Punted to 7.0
to ✅ Done
in WordPress 6.9 Editor Tasks
This was referenced Oct 20, 2025
13 tasks
This file contains hidden or 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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
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?
In Patterns code, infer the list of blocks supported by pattern overrides from the server (instead of a hardcoded array).
Follow-up to #71820.
Why?
This is one of the instances where we were still keeping a separate, hard-coded list of blocks supported by block bindings on the client side, and it has been outdated for a while (
core/post-dateis missing).Starting with #71820, we've been using the server side as the source of truth for the list of blocks (and block attributes) supported by block bindings; it is also exposed on the client side via private block context (see #72351).
How?
PARTIAL_SYNCING_SUPPORTED_BLOCKSfromisOverridableBlock, and instead check againstObject.keys( select( blockEditorStore ).getSettings()?.__experimentalBlockBindingsSupportedAttributes || {} )from the callsites ofisOverridableBlock.hasOverridableBlocks(as that depended onisOverridableBlockand additionally worked recursively), and also perform the relevant checks inline.Testing Instructions
Verify that pattern overrides still work. For example,
(from #60721)