@wordpress/blocks: allow Partial BlockConfiguration as 2nd arg when 1st arg is metadata.

[ZebulanStanphill]

Description

Follow-up to #55245.

The following should work (as seen in the official documentation), but currently, the 2nd arg is considered invalid:

import { registerBlockType } from '@wordpress/blocks'
import edit from './edit'

const metadata = {
	apiVersion: 2,
	name: 'foo/bar',
	category: 'widgets',
	attributes: {},
	example: {},
	title: 'Block title',
	textdomain: 'foo',
	script: 'file:./script.js',
	editorScript: 'file:./editor-script.js',
}

registerBlockType(metadata, { edit })

The problem is that the 2nd arg, while optional, still requires all the same props if present, whereas with the new signature, it shouldn't require any.

This PR fixes that issue by adding a Partial around the 2nd arg in the signature that accepts a metadata object as the first argument.

Checklists

Please fill in this template.

• Use a meaningful title for the pull request. Include the name of the package modified.
• Test the change in your own code. (Compile and run.)
• Add or edit tests to reflect the change.
• Follow the advice from the readme.
• Avoid common mistakes.
• Run npm test <package to test>.

Select one of these and delete the others:

If changing an existing definition:

• Provide a URL to documentation or source code which provides context for the suggested changes: https://developer.wordpress.org/block-editor/reference-guides/block-api/block-metadata/#javascript-client-side
• If this PR brings the type definitions up to date with a new version of the JS library, update the version number in the header.

[typescript-bot]

@ZebulanStanphill Thank you for submitting this PR! I see this is your first time submitting to DefinitelyTyped 👋 — I'm the local bot who will help you through the process of getting things through.

This is a live comment which I will keep updated.

1 package in this PR

• wordpress__blocks — on npm, on unpkg
  • owner-approval: @dmsnell

Code Reviews

Because you edited one package and updated the tests (👏), I can help you merge this PR once someone else signs off on it.

You can test the changes of this PR in the Playground.

Status

• ✅ No merge conflicts
• ✅ Continuous integration tests have passed
• ✅ Most recent commit is approved by type definition owners, DT maintainers or others

All of the items on the list are green. To merge, you need to post a comment including the string "Ready to merge" to bring in your changes.

---

Diagnostic Information: What the bot saw about this PR

{
  "type": "info",
  "now": "-",
  "pr_number": 55960,
  "author": "ZebulanStanphill",
  "headCommitOid": "977f9b88e0bcab181559dfd50967a740331db679",
  "lastPushDate": "2021-09-23T21:45:23.000Z",
  "lastActivityDate": "2021-09-23T22:54:46.000Z",
  "mergeOfferDate": "2021-09-23T22:53:39.000Z",
  "mergeRequestDate": "2021-09-23T22:54:46.000Z",
  "mergeRequestUser": "ZebulanStanphill",
  "hasMergeConflict": false,
  "isFirstContribution": true,
  "tooManyFiles": false,
  "popularityLevel": "Well-liked by everyone",
  "pkgInfo": [
    {
      "name": "wordpress__blocks",
      "kind": "edit",
      "files": [
        {
          "path": "types/wordpress__blocks/api/registration.d.ts",
          "kind": "definition"
        },
        {
          "path": "types/wordpress__blocks/wordpress__blocks-tests.tsx",
          "kind": "test"
        }
      ],
      "owners": [
        "dsifford",
        "sirreal",
        "dmsnell"
      ],
      "addedOwners": [],
      "deletedOwners": [],
      "popularityLevel": "Well-liked by everyone"
    }
  ],
  "reviews": [
    {
      "type": "approved",
      "reviewer": "dmsnell",
      "date": "2021-09-23T22:30:56.000Z",
      "isMaintainer": false
    }
  ],
  "mainBotCommentID": 926204565,
  "ciResult": "pass"
}

[typescript-bot]

🔔 @dsifford @sirreal @dmsnell — please review this PR in the next few days. Be sure to explicitly select Approve or Request Changes in the GitHub UI so I know what's going on.

[dmsnell]

Thanks for the fast fix @ZebulanStanphill - looks like a winner to me

[dmsnell]

I think we could find a way to say "you have to supply the missing metadata" here but no need in this PR. maybe a dog-ear for the future.

[ZebulanStanphill]

I'm not entirely sure, but I think a block.json is expected to contain all the required properties anyway, so I don't think that would be necessary.

[typescript-bot]

@ZebulanStanphill: Everything looks good here. I am ready to merge this PR (at 977f9b8) on your behalf whenever you think it's ready.

If you'd like that to happen, please post a comment saying:

Ready to merge

and I'll merge this PR almost instantly. Thanks for helping out! ❤️

(@dsifford, @sirreal, @dmsnell: you can do this too.)

[ZebulanStanphill]

Ready to merge