Content only and patterns: detach edit fields from the content only experience #73605
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
ramonjd
added
[Type] Project Management
ramonjd
requested review from
talldan
and removed request for
ellatrix and
spacedmonkey
|
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. |
|
Size Change: -13 B (0%) Total Size: 2.57 MB
ℹ️ View Unchanged
|
packages/block-editor/src/components/inspector-controls-tabs/content-tab.js
Show resolved
Hide resolved
ramonjd
force-pushed
the
add/content-only-inspector-controls-experiment
branch
from
c0c3d5e to
7a4a5d5
Compare
ramonjd
commented
Nov 28, 2025
lib/experiments-page.php
Outdated
| * when their parent experiments are disabled | ||
| */ | ||
| add_action( 'admin_init', 'gutenberg_handle_experiments_setting_submission' ); | ||
| function gutenberg_handle_experiments_setting_submission() { |
Member
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Piggy backing on this hook as a general experiments settings hook.
I'm using it to ensure that the inspector fields experiment is unset when the content only experiment is.
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Conceptually I like the idea that we can support sub-experiments 👍
For this particular experiment, though, is it needed? Does anything bad happen if the edit fields experiment is enabled and the content only experiment is disabled? For simplicity sake, I was wondering if it's better to just handle this in the description of the test, without needing to make the PHP logic here more complex.
On the other hand, as we continue to add more experiments, this experiments page could use some love (i.e. headings for different sections, and I'm sure this won't be the last time we need to create sub-experiments to try out different parts of experimental features).
Just thinking out loud 😄
Member
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Does anything bad happen if the edit fields experiment is enabled and the content only experiment is disabled?
Not really I guess. The beef of the change checks for both: https://github.com/WordPress/gutenberg/pull/73605/files#diff-d193f64fcbd7c0c3b7c974f3768478220bf73faf5463233eb2274a1d0b3dbb11R18
We could check for both in the block library too?
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We could check for both in the block library too?
I don't think we need both checks in the block library, though, as they're only used for the window.__experimentalContentOnlyInspectorFields experiment. If the latter is switched on and the former experiment isn't, does anything bad happen?
I guess what I'm trying to say is, the experiments seem fairly isolated to me. Or do we never want to test the editable inspector fields separately from the logic that turns inserted patterns into contentOnly?
To try to use simpler words: is it useful to test editable content fields in isolation? My hunch was that it might be.
Member
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Gotcha. Good point. It's worth a look to avoid all this complexity I reckon. I'll try it out.
…ector fields' setting and implement dependency checks for related experiments. Update UI to reflect changes in inspector controls based on experiment states.
… instead of 'experimentalContentOnlyPatternInsertion' across multiple block files for improved inspector field handling.
… to manage template activation and experiment dependencies more effectively. Ensure sub-experiments are disabled when their parent experiment is not active, enhancing the integrity of experiment states.
…and streamline the submission process for template activation settings.
ramonjd
force-pushed
the
add/content-only-inspector-controls-experiment
branch
from
f0f967f to
aba76f6
Compare
andrewserong
approved these changes
Dec 2, 2025
Contributor
andrewserong
left a comment
andrewserong
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is testing nicely for me in splitting out the experiments:
With just gutenberg-content-only-pattern-insertion
With both gutenberg-content-only-pattern-insertion and `'gutenberg-content-only-inspector-fields'
And everything still appears to work as on trunk with the experiments disabled.
LGTM — I think this will help both test the pattern insertion behaviour in isolation, while allowing iterative development on the editable fields, which is a bit more of an experimental feature.
Member
Author
|
I appreciate all the testing/reviews |
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?
Resolves #73532
Adds a sub-experiment
gutenberg-content-only-inspector-fieldsthat gates the editable inspector fields (from PR #73374). The sub-experiment is only available whengutenberg-content-only-pattern-insertionis enabled.Changes:
ContentOnlyControlswith editable fields only shows when both experiments are enabledBlockQuickNavigation(pre-PR ContentOnly Patterns experiment: Add content only inspector fields #71730 behavior)Testing Instructions
contentOnly: Make patterns contentOnly by default upon insertionexperimentcontentOnly: Enable editable inspector fieldscheckbox appears and is enabledContentOnlyControlsshows with all editable fields (media, links, alt text, etc.)BlockQuickNavigationis shown insteadBlockQuickNavigation