FSE Beta: Footer credit looks different in the editor vs front-end of the site

[creativecoder]

Quick summary

When using a theme that support block templates, the Footer credit looks different in the Site editor vs the front end of the site.

Editor	Front-end

Steps to reproduce

1. Create an FSE beta site at horizon.wordpress.com/new
2. Compare what you see in the Site editor vs what's on the front-end of the site in the footer

What you expected to happen

They look the same.

What actually happened

They don't (see screenshots, above)

Context

No response

Browser

No response

Simple/Atomic

No response

Other notes

No response

Reproducibility

Consistent

Severity

No response

Available workarounds?

No response

Workaround details

No response

[creativecoder]

Note that this is currently caused by how we inject the WordPress.com footer credit for FSE sites. We need to represent this visually in the editor, rather than only through filters on the server-side.

[carinapilar]

Just noticed this when doing some FSE training. It's especially confusing because it's a regular Paragraph block on the editor, not something like a "Footer Credit" block as it happens with other FSE blocks.

[cuemarie]

I've also encountered this in testing FSE sites. On both Simple and AT test sites, the WordPress.com Footer Credit reflects the selection under Appearance > Customize > Site Identity, and does not reflect what is shown or edited in the Site Editor > Footer Template Part.

[the-misha]

Also ran into this, as documented here.

[cuemarie]

I think this may be resolved - or at least in some cases.

Just had a user on Premium plan with theme Byrne who wanted to update their footer credit; and I see that the template no longer contains a Paragraph block with the credit, and instead their Appearance > Customize area is able to properly impact the footer credit.

Not sure if this is resolved on all themes or some, so leaving open for now, but wanted to share that update.

[Greatdane]

I can still see it. Perhaps there is a better way we can visualize the footer credit? As @carinapilar said, something like a Footer Credit Block that represents what is in the customizer.

[arinoch]

Had this issue with a user while fixing something else in 35495388-hc. Was able to reproduce it on multiple themes--including Twenty Twenty-Two, so not strictly an A8C themes problem, in my own testing. User expected their FSE footer changes to take over when we hid the WordPress.com footer credit. They did not. This seems the most relevant issue due to this comment.

Followed up in 5217168-zd-woothemes.

Further testing (thank you, @happychait!) in p1652659261220859-slack-C03TY6J1A suggests a possible workaround.

1. Create a new template, for example a front page template.

2. Assign that new template to at least one page.

3. Add your footer and other necessary parts to that template.

4. Your custom FSE footer now shows up as intended.

[helenaartmann]

Another case here: 5358224-zn

[kuropixel]

Another case. 36319808-hc

[github-actions]

Support References

This comment is automatically generated. Please do not edit it.

• 5217168-zen
• 5862586-zen

[zdenys]

It was a major TIL for me in 5862586-zd-woothemes

On the site with FSE theme Tsubaki, user's custom footer edited via Site Editor was not showing up on the frontend until I actually checked the HTML of the very paragraph block they added to find out that it contained <a href="https://wordpress.org" rel="nofollow">. As soon as I changed href value to a different one (user's own site URL), the custom footer credit started showing up on the front end.

[cuemarie]

Note: Did a little research into the Footer Credit on Templates today - it looks like there was work being put into a better solution that was ultimately put on hold, here: https://github.com/Automattic/view-design/issues/244

For now it seems this is not high on the priority list anywhere.

📌 ACTIONS

• lowering priority for now

[mrfoxtalbot]

This issue has a lot of overlap with #81611

Do you think we could close this in favor of the other one, @creativecoder?

[creativecoder]

Do you think we could close this in favor of the other one, @creativecoder?

Fine with me!

[mmtr]

This should have been fixed by D156044-code (Simple sites) and Automattic/jetpack#38458 (Atomic sites).