Add contentRole to Query block and make sure Change design always works as expected #71686
Conversation
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
tellthemachines
added
[Type] Bug
|
Flaky tests detected in 2a11acc. 🔍 Workflow run URL: https://github.com/WordPress/gutenberg/actions/runs/17785068630
|
tellthemachines
force-pushed
the
fix/content-only-query
branch
from
7394b6c to
2e9cf6a
Compare
|
Size Change: +34 B (0%) Total Size: 1.94 MB
ℹ️ View Unchanged
|
tellthemachines
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. |
tellthemachines
requested review from
aaronrobertshaw,
andrewserong,
ramonjd and
talldan
tellthemachines
changed the title
ramonjd
approved these changes
Sep 17, 2025
Member
ramonjd
left a comment
ramonjd
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
👍🏻 I agree with your statement over in #67763 (comment)
contentOnly does mitigate the problem somewhat so maybe we can do that first and then iterate further.
Comment on lines
+46
to
+53
| const allPatterns = usePatterns( clientId, blockNameForPatterns ); | ||
| // Filter out any patterns that don't have Query as their root block | ||
| // so that a Query block is always replaced by another Query block. | ||
| const rootBlockPatterns = useMemo( () => { | ||
| return allPatterns.filter( ( pattern ) => { | ||
| return pattern.blocks?.[ 0 ]?.name === blockNameForPatterns; | ||
| } ); | ||
| }, [ allPatterns, blockNameForPatterns ] ); |
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is working pretty well for me, and I think the trade off (that it might reduce the number of available patterns) is probably worth it.
Do you think there's a case for best practice eduction that Query patterns should ideally be wrapped in a Query block?
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't know. Conceivably you may want to create a complex pattern with a query in it, or even multiple queries. I think there's a place for those, but they aren't viable as replacements for a single Query block.
Co-authored-by: Ramon <[email protected]>
m1r0
reviewed
Dec 10, 2025
Comment on lines
+46
to
+53
| const allPatterns = usePatterns( clientId, blockNameForPatterns ); | ||
| // Filter out any patterns that don't have Query as their root block | ||
| // so that a Query block is always replaced by another Query block. | ||
| const rootBlockPatterns = useMemo( () => { | ||
| return allPatterns.filter( ( pattern ) => { | ||
| return pattern.blocks?.[ 0 ]?.name === blockNameForPatterns; | ||
| } ); | ||
| }, [ allPatterns, blockNameForPatterns ] ); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hey folks! 👋
I’m maintaining Sensei LMS and noticed that one of our blocks (block variation of core/query) stopped showing the “Choose” patterns button, and it looks like this change is related. For context, the custom patterns are registered here. Could you give me a hand with finding a solution?
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@m1r0 would you be able to create a new issue for this and then link to it from here?
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Oh I think the problem might be we're filtering for whatever variation is active, so you won't get other variations or the default query block in the results. We should probably filter for all instances of query block, whatever the variation. I'll try and get a fix up soon!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Awesome! Thank you so much for the quick reaction, @tellthemachines!
This was referenced Dec 11, 2025
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?
Fixes #67763.
The Query block is currently unselectable if it's nested inside a pattern. Adding
contentRolemakes it selectable in instances where it's not buried too deep in the pattern 😅 (see nesting issue I commented on here)Also, when we "Change design", some of the designs that come up don't have Query as their root block, and that can cause all sorts of problems like adding extra layers of nesting to a pattern, which then changes its layout in undesirable ways (you can end up with a really squished Query inside several Groups that each add extra margins).
I believe the best way of addressing this is by making sure that we always replace a Query with another Query, by not providing more complex patterns as options in the "Change design" modal, so this PR filters out those other patterns.
Testing Instructions