Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

1.9.1: Gutenberg breaks "classic" posts w/ shortcodes by carelessly wrapping shortcodes into <p> tags #3900

Closed
lkraav opened this Issue Dec 10, 2017 · 32 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
8 participants
@lkraav
Copy link

lkraav commented Dec 10, 2017

(EDIT 2018-02-23 still broken in 2.2.0)
(EDIT 2018-03-06 still broken in 2.3.0)
(EDIT 2018-07-04 still broken in 3.1.1)
(EDIT 2018-07-21 still broken in 3.3.0)

Issue Overview

It is not safe to open classic posts in Gutenberg, shortcodes get unexpectedly wrapped in <p> tags.

Steps to Reproduce (for bugs)

  1. Author a new post in classic editor w/ this example content
<h2>Shinier than yours, meatbag.</h2>

You can crush me but you can't crush my spirit! Is today's hectic lifestyle making you tense and impatient? It's a T. It goes "tuh". I'll tell them you went down prying the wedding ring off his cold, dead finger.

[column]

I daresay that Fry has discovered the smelliest object in the known universe! For the last time, I don't like lilacs! Your 'first' wife was the one who liked lilacs! No argument here. A true inspiration for the children.

[/column]

Hello world.
  1. Open this post in Gutenberg
  2. Switch to Code Editor mode to review transformed markup

Expected Behavior

I'm not sure what the latest transformation goal for classic posts is. <!-- wp:freeform --> seems to be gone? Is #2454 relevant to the issue at hand?

Current Behavior

I see the following transformation in Code Editor, which I consider broken for the shortcodes, since the result is broken rendering on the frontend:

<h2>Shinier than yours, meatbag.</h2>
<p>You can crush me but you can't crush my spirit! Is today's hectic lifestyle making you tense and impatient? It's a T. It goes "tuh". I'll tell them you went down prying the wedding ring off his cold, dead finger.</p>
<p>[column grid="2" span="1"]</p>
<p>I daresay that Fry has discovered the smelliest object in the known universe! For the last time, I don't like lilacs! Your 'first' wife was the one who liked lilacs! No argument here. A true inspiration for the children.</p>
<p>[/column]</p>
<p>[column grid="2" span="1"]</p>
<p>Hello world.</p>
<p>[/column]</p>

"Convert to blocks" also gets completely confused by this result and fails to separate shortcodes into their own blocks.

Possible Solution

Not sure, could use pointers. What instructions should I provide users to avoid insta-breaking all classic content saved in Gutenberg?

Screenshots / Video

N/A

Related Issues and/or PRs

Not sure, could use pointers.

@lkraav lkraav changed the title 1.8.1: Gutenberg breaks "classic" posts w/ shortcodes by carelessly wrapping shortcodes into <p> tags 1.9.0: Gutenberg breaks "classic" posts w/ shortcodes by carelessly wrapping shortcodes into <p> tags Dec 11, 2017

@lkraav

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Author

lkraav commented Dec 11, 2017

Tested on 1.9.0, situation is exactly the same.

@lkraav lkraav changed the title 1.9.0: Gutenberg breaks "classic" posts w/ shortcodes by carelessly wrapping shortcodes into <p> tags 1.9.1: Gutenberg breaks "classic" posts w/ shortcodes by carelessly wrapping shortcodes into <p> tags Dec 14, 2017

@aduth

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

aduth commented Dec 18, 2017

Does the classic editor handle this gracefully when viewing a post with this markup on the front-end?

@lkraav

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Author

lkraav commented Dec 19, 2017

Does the classic editor handle this gracefully when viewing a post with this markup on the front-end?

Yes. (Maybe also have to account for https://core.trac.wordpress.org/ticket/14050)

@aduth but may I ask, how is this question related to Gutenberg wrapping shortcodes into <p> in the backend editor. Isn't frontend rendering a different topic?

@aduth

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

aduth commented Dec 19, 2017

@lkraav My question was to try to clarify whether the Gutenberg behavior is in-fact the expected behavior, depending on how this would have been treated for pre-Gutenberg content.

@lkraav

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Author

lkraav commented Dec 19, 2017

My question was to try to clarify whether the Gutenberg behavior is in-fact the expected behavior, depending on how this would have been treated for pre-Gutenberg content.

@aduth OK, but wouldn't the backend-relevant question be about "does classic editor have the same effect when switching between Text vs Visual modes"?

But indeed, if you're saying Gutenberg backend transforms are already supposed to accurately mirror frontend rendering output, then I do see the point of the question, but how can this broken paragraph wrapping be expected output? Such expected output would have been breaking HTML for all opening+closing block level shortcodes for over a decade, no?

@azaozz

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

azaozz commented Jan 2, 2018

Does the classic editor handle this gracefully when viewing a post with this markup on the front-end?

The answer is "technically: no" because this is handled by shortcode_unautop() on display, not by the editor. Shortcodes and their content that contain line breaks (doing it wrong?) are still wrapped in <p> tags inside the editor and "unwrapped" before displaying the posts.

Seems Gutenberg would need some sort of shortcode_unautop() when loading existing posts. Not so sure what to do with shortcodes without "preview" after loading though. Perhaps a better idea is to "force-convert" all shortcodes to blocks. That will protect badly written shortcodes and show "previews" when supported, all without the need of more code/processing.

@bobbingwide bobbingwide referenced this issue Jan 14, 2018

Closed

New lines in shortcode content are ignored #4456

0 of 2 tasks complete

@jeffpaul jeffpaul added the [Type] Bug label Jan 26, 2018

@lkraav

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Author

lkraav commented Feb 23, 2018

Tested broken in 2.2.0.

(EDIT 2018-03-06 Tested broken in 2.3.0)

@danielbachhuber

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

danielbachhuber commented Jun 18, 2018

@lkraav I took a look into this issue this morning.

Based on my understanding, the problem of Gutenberg breaks "classic" posts w/ shortcodes by carelessly wrapping shortcodes into <p> tags would be fixed by support for multi-line shortcodes (#4942). When Gutenberg supports multi-line shortcodes, then your example will transform into:

<!-- wp:heading -->
<h2>Shinier than yours, meatbag.</h2>
<!-- /wp:heading -->

<!-- wp:paragraph -->
<p>You can crush me but you can't crush my spirit! Is today's hectic lifestyle making you tense and impatient? It's a T. It goes "tuh". I'll tell them you went down prying the wedding ring off his cold, dead finger.</p>
<!-- /wp:paragraph -->

<!-- wp:shortcode -->
[column]

I daresay that Fry has discovered the smelliest object in the known universe! For the last time, I don't like lilacs! Your 'first' wife was the one who liked lilacs! No argument here. A true inspiration for the children.

[/column]
<!-- /wp:shortcode -->

<!-- wp:paragraph -->
<p>Hello world.</p>
<!-- /wp:paragraph -->

Is my statement an accurate representation of your expectation, or is there additional detail I'm missing?

@lkraav

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Author

lkraav commented Jun 19, 2018

<!-- wp:shortcode -->
[column]

I daresay that Fry has discovered the smelliest object in the known universe! For the last time, I don't like lilacs! Your 'first' wife was the one who liked lilacs! No argument here. A true inspiration for the children.

[/column]
<!-- /wp:shortcode -->

Thanks for taking it on. Above output looks a bit suspect to me, because how would that look like in Visual Mode? We def. need to keep block-style visual editing intact between the opening and closing shortcodes (=== all blocks visual usage available). I think we'd be heading into Shortcake / Nested blocks territory here, which is a whole world on its own.

Expected output for me, at least for starters, would be:

<!-- wp:shortcode -->
[column]
<!-- /wp:shortcode -->

<!-- wp:paragraph -->
<p>I daresay that Fry has discovered the smelliest object in the known universe! For the last time, I don't like lilacs! Your 'first' wife was the one who liked lilacs! No argument here. A true inspiration for the children.</p>
<!-- /wp:paragraph -->

<!-- wp:shortcode -->
[/column]
<!-- /wp:shortcode -->
@swissspidy

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

swissspidy commented Jun 19, 2018

Possibly related: #5940.

@danielbachhuber

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

danielbachhuber commented Jun 19, 2018

Above output looks a bit suspect to me, because how would that look like in Visual Mode? We def. need to keep block-style visual editing intact between the opening and closing shortcodes (=== all blocks visual usage available).

Oh, I think we have different expectations here.

I don't expect you'll be able to visually edit the inner content of a shortcode. Your UI will look more like this:

image

Specifically, the shortcode block adopts a <textarea> instead of <input>.

Visually editing the inner content of a shortcode sounds like Pandora's box to me.

@lkraav

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Author

lkraav commented Jun 19, 2018

Visually editing the inner content of a shortcode sounds like Pandora's box to me.

Perhaps, but such a UX would be a world ahead of being restricted to plain text and/or html between opening and closing shortcodes. Isn't this exactly what Gutenberg is trying to get away from?

OTOH, if shortcodes are being phased out for blocks, text-only could be a decent enough of a stop-gap solution.

Primary goal should be to just keep markup from radically breaking, such as shown in the opening comment.

(EDIT 2018-07-04 Tested broken in 3.1.1)

@danielbachhuber

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

danielbachhuber commented Jun 19, 2018

OTOH, if shortcodes are being phased out for blocks, text-only could be a decent enough of a stop-gap solution.

Correct, this is my thinking.

Primary goal should be to just keep markup from radically breaking, such as shown in the opening comment.

Yes, I agree.

@danielbachhuber

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

danielbachhuber commented Jul 17, 2018

With #7892, this Classic text:

[column]

I daresay that Fry has discovered the smelliest object in the known universe! For the last time, I don't like lilacs! Your 'first' wife was the one who liked lilacs! No argument here. A true inspiration for the children.

[/column]

Transforms into the following block:

<!-- wp:shortcode -->
[column]</p>
<p>I daresay that Fry has discovered the smelliest object in the known universe! For the last time, I don't like lilacs! Your 'first' wife was the one who liked lilacs! No argument here. A true inspiration for the children.</p>
<p>[/column]
<!-- /wp:shortcode -->

image

Progress, but still not quite there.

@lkraav

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Author

lkraav commented Jul 17, 2018

Progress, but still not quite there.

Thanks a ton for pushing this.

Reminds me of the work I did for https://core.trac.wordpress.org/ticket/14050 which has stalled for years, because the risk surface and complexity of regexing through shortcodes is massive.

I still use my own micro-plugin I posted there on all sites, as my mini-updates to the monster regex have proven to be completely production safe, and eliminated most of those </p> closing tags appearing out of nowhere.

But that's PHP shortcode_unautop() and you're working this I think at fully JS level. Still, *shivers* :)

@danielbachhuber

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

danielbachhuber commented Jul 18, 2018

Some conversation with @azaozz in the thread of https://wordpress.slack.com/messages/C02QB2JS7/

The suggestion to explore is:

azaozz 24 hours ago hm, ok, why don't we do the wpautop() on the server when loading old posts, then run the post_content through shortcode_unautop()
azaozz 24 hours ago this is exactly the same as now on the front-end

@pento

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

pento commented Jul 20, 2018

If a fix is bad, but it works, is it actually bad? 🙂

$ git diff
diff --git a/core-blocks/shortcode/index.js b/core-blocks/shortcode/index.js
index 3f8d0b049..829f34d48 100644
--- a/core-blocks/shortcode/index.js
+++ b/core-blocks/shortcode/index.js
@@ -46,7 +46,7 @@ export const settings = {
                                        text: {
                                                type: 'string',
                                                shortcode: ( attrs, { content } ) => {
-                                                       return content;
+                                                       return wp.oldEditor.removep( wp.oldEditor.autop( content ) );
                                                },
                                        },
                                },
@lkraav

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Author

lkraav commented Jul 20, 2018

If a fix is bad, but it works, is it actually bad?

Lol, sounds similar to "violence is not the answer... but it works!"

I still don't know the general answer to either.

@danielbachhuber

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

danielbachhuber commented Jul 20, 2018

If a fix is bad, but it works, is it actually bad?

🎉 Honestly, I think it's better than @azaozz because it limits the scope of the change. With #3900 (comment), I'd be slightly terrified of something breaking in an unexpected way.

@pento

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

pento commented Jul 20, 2018

I've done basically no testing on this fix, just a few cases to show that it removes all the <p>'s that get added to shortcodes containing plain text.

Are there more complex cases that we need to deal with? Nested shortcodes, shortcodes with HTML inside them, that kind of thing?

@danielbachhuber

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

danielbachhuber commented Jul 20, 2018

I've done basically no testing on this fix, just a few cases to show that it removes all the

's that get added to shortcodes containing plain text.

I think it's a reasonable assumption that <p> tags are excluded/stripped from shortcode inner_content, given this is the current behavior of the Classic Editor:

paragraph

Are there more complex cases that we need to deal with? Nested shortcodes, shortcodes with HTML inside them, that kind of thing?

"Complex cases" is shortcode's middle name. I think #8077 is better than what we have now, and we'll discover whether there are other edge cases to accommodate for when Gutenberg sees a wider audience.

@aduth

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

aduth commented Jul 20, 2018

Transforms into the following block:

<!-- wp:shortcode -->
[column]</p>
<p>I daresay that Fry has discovered the smelliest object in the known universe! For the last time, I >don't like lilacs! Your 'first' wife was the one who liked lilacs! No argument here. A true inspiration for the children.</p>
<p>[/column]
<!-- /wp:shortcode -->

While it surely looks strange, I don't know that this is strictly wrong.

With Gutenberg completely disabled, this is exactly what's passed as the $content argument to the callback of add_shortcode provided the original (non-block) markup:

<?php

/**
 * Plugin Name: Demo Shortcode
 */

add_shortcode( 'column', function( $attrs, $content ) {
	error_log( $content );
	return 'foo';
} );
[20-Jul-2018 13:43:02 UTC] </p>
<p>I daresay that Fry has discovered the smelliest object in the known universe! For the last time, I don&#8217;t like lilacs! Your &#8216;first&#8217; wife was the one who liked lilacs! No argument here. A true inspiration for the children.</p>
<p>

So it doesn't seem unexpected that Gutenberg, with its ignoring wpautop, would render the p tags verbatim. The content passed to the add_shortcode callback is the same.

[20-Jul-2018 13:45:46 UTC] </p>
<p>I daresay that Fry has discovered the smelliest object in the known universe! For the last time, I don&#8217;t like lilacs! Your &#8216;first&#8217; wife was the one who liked lilacs! No argument here. A true inspiration for the children.</p>
<p>

In fact, it's only with the proposed removep behavior in #8077 that the content actually changes, which to me seems like the real regression:

[20-Jul-2018 13:45:53 UTC] 

I daresay that Fry has discovered the smelliest object in the known universe! For the last time, I don&#8217;t like lilacs! Your &#8216;first&#8217; wife was the one who liked lilacs! No argument here. A true inspiration for the children.

This may be partly due to how wpautop is disabled for posts containing blocks.

gutenberg/lib/compat.php

Lines 134 to 149 in 5a65727

/**
* As a substitute for the default content `wpautop` filter, applies autop
* behavior only for posts where content does not contain blocks.
*
* @param string $content Post content.
* @return string Paragraph-converted text if non-block content.
*/
function gutenberg_wpautop( $content ) {
if ( gutenberg_content_has_blocks( $content ) ) {
return $content;
}
return wpautop( $content );
}
remove_filter( 'the_content', 'wpautop' );
add_filter( 'the_content', 'gutenberg_wpautop', 8 );

@danielbachhuber

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

danielbachhuber commented Jul 20, 2018

With Gutenberg completely disabled, this is exactly what's passed as the $content argument to the callback of add_shortcode provided the original (non-block) markup:

<?php

/**
 * Plugin Name: Demo Shortcode
 */

add_shortcode( 'column', function( $attrs, $content ) {
	error_log( $content );
	return 'foo';
} );
[20-Jul-2018 13:43:02 UTC] </p>
<p>I daresay that Fry has discovered the smelliest object in the known universe! For the last time, I don&#8217;t like lilacs! Your &#8216;first&#8217; wife was the one who liked lilacs! No argument here. A true inspiration for the children.</p>
<p>

This assessment is correct.

@lkraav Can you share more detail about how you handle this in the Classic Editor, and what your expectations would be about Gutenberg?

@aduth Do you have a proposed resolution to suggest at this point? maybelater?

@aduth

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

aduth commented Jul 20, 2018

It's tricky, since the shortcode rendering itself is completely unimpacted, but also would have anticipated that the rest of content would have also had wpautop applied. So while previously, the developer could return $content directly and have a consistent tags, if they were to do so now, without the wpautop applied by Gutenberg, it could result in some breakage:

I was inclined to think that this would break, but in fact the rendered output is identical (though both the "original" and "converted" rendered outputs have non-balanced tags). I think this is because the server-side shortcode renderer replaces the opening <p> anyways (citation needed). At this point, I'd suggest that this is "working as intended", at least so far as backwards-compatibility.

Original:

<h2>Shinier than yours, meatbag.</h2>

You can crush me but you can't crush my spirit! Is today's hectic lifestyle making you tense and impatient? It's a T. It goes "tuh". I'll tell them you went down prying the wedding ring off his cold, dead finger.

[column]

I daresay that Fry has discovered the smelliest object in the known universe! For the last time, I don't like lilacs! Your 'first' wife was the one who liked lilacs! No argument here. A true inspiration for the children.

[/column]

Hello world.

Converted:

<!-- wp:heading -->
<h2>Shinier than yours, meatbag.</h2>
<!-- /wp:heading -->

<!-- wp:paragraph -->
<p>You can crush me but you can't crush my spirit! Is today's hectic lifestyle making you tense and impatient? It's a T. It goes "tuh". I'll tell them you went down prying the wedding ring off his cold, dead finger.</p>
<!-- /wp:paragraph -->

<!-- wp:shortcode -->
[column]</p>
<p>I daresay that Fry has discovered the smelliest object in the known universe! For the last time, I don't like lilacs! Your 'first' wife was the one who liked lilacs! No argument here. A true inspiration for the children.</p>
<p>
[/column]
<!-- /wp:shortcode -->

<!-- wp:paragraph -->
<p>Hello world.</p>
<!-- /wp:paragraph -->

Original Rendered:

<h2>Shinier than yours, meatbag.</h2>
<p>You can crush me but you can&#8217;t crush my spirit! Is today&#8217;s hectic lifestyle making you tense and impatient? It&#8217;s a T. It goes &#8220;tuh&#8221;. I&#8217;ll tell them you went down prying the wedding ring off his cold, dead finger.</p>
</p>
<p>I daresay that Fry has discovered the smelliest object in the known universe! For the last time, I don&#8217;t like lilacs! Your &#8216;first&#8217; wife was the one who liked lilacs! No argument here. A true inspiration for the children.</p>
<p>
<p>Hello world.</p>

Converted Rendered:

<h2>Shinier than yours, meatbag.</h2>

<p>You can crush me but you can&#8217;t crush my spirit! Is today&#8217;s hectic lifestyle making you tense and impatient? It&#8217;s a T. It goes &#8220;tuh&#8221;. I&#8217;ll tell them you went down prying the wedding ring off his cold, dead finger.</p>

</p>
<p>I daresay that Fry has discovered the smelliest object in the known universe! For the last time, I don&#8217;t like lilacs! Your &#8216;first&#8217; wife was the one who liked lilacs! No argument here. A true inspiration for the children.</p>
<p>


<p>Hello world.</p>
@danielbachhuber

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

danielbachhuber commented Jul 20, 2018

Ok. My one remaining concern at this point is that a user who sees <p> paragraph tags exposed in the transformed Shortcode Block may think them unexpected, remove them, and then experience different behavior in rendering.

image

image

Removing the <p> paragraph tags in that example changes the inner content from broken / unbalanced tags to no tags at all:

[20-Jul-2018 14:19:33 UTC] '</p>
<p>I daresay that Fry has discovered the smelliest object in the known universe! For the last time, I don&#8217;t like lilacs! Your &#8216;first&#8217; wife was the one who liked lilacs! No argument here. A true inspiration for the children.</p>
<p>'
[20-Jul-2018 14:19:45 UTC] '
I daresay that Fry has discovered the smelliest object in the known universe! For the last time, I don&#8217;t like lilacs! Your &#8216;first&#8217; wife was the one who liked lilacs! No argument here. A true inspiration for the children.
'

Generally, I think the expected behavior is:

  1. No <p> paragraph tags are displayed in shortcode inner content in the editor.
  2. (Unbalanced / broken) <p> paragraph tags are included in the $content passed to the shortcode render callback.

At this point though, I'd be fine to close as maybelater for now and see if becomes a more widespread problem. We have the beginnings of a fix at least, so we're at a better state than we were a day ago.

Or, we could land #8077 and also recreate unbalanced / broken paragraph tags on the inner content prior to rendering the shortcode.

I'll wait for @lkraav to weigh in before closing.

@lkraav

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Author

lkraav commented Jul 21, 2018

I rebased 3900-unautop on top of today's master, which is basically v3.3.0 + 201be4b. So #8077 is included.

First thing noticed: opening comment use case still doesn't work off the bat. If the user just opens the example document in Gutenberg, saves it, markup will become silently broken, esp. if no editing operation was performed.

Looking at #3900 (comment) it seems like it somehow became the expectation that the user should know to execute "Convert to Blocks" operation. No such assumption can be safely made, but I'm betting this is known so perhaps I'm misreading where exactly we're at.

First and foremost, I would still expect Gutenberg to be able to maintain original comment document health.

Convert to blocks

Good news is, #8077 seems to indeed now provide correct transformation on the opening comment example document. Nice step forward, for sure. This working well would help admins all across the world perform safer one-click getaways from legacy markup. Can't imagine shipping 5.0 with anything less.

Stretch goal convert

Sure would be dreamy if shortcode content would run through transformation chain as well. Feels like the infrastructure is already in place, anything specific stopping it?

Dreamy output:

<!-- wp:shortcode -->
[column grid="2" span="1"]
<!-- /wp:shortcode -->

<!-- wp:paragraph -->
<p>I daresay that Fry has discovered the smelliest object in the known universe! For the last time, I don't like lilacs! Your 'first' wife was the one who liked lilacs! No argument here. A true inspiration for the children.</p>
<!-- /wp:paragraph -->

<!-- wp:shortcode -->
[/column]
<!-- /wp:shortcode -->

<!-- wp:shortcode -->
[column grid="2" span="1"]
<!-- /wp:shortcode -->

<!-- wp:paragraph -->
<p>Hello world.</p>
<!-- /wp:paragraph -->

<!-- wp:shortcode -->
[/column]
<!-- /wp:shortcode -->
@aduth

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

aduth commented Jul 26, 2018

If the user just opens the example document in Gutenberg, saves it, markup will become silently broken, esp. if no editing operation was performed.

Can we clarify what is specifically broken? The markup changes, introducing paragraph tags which did not exist previously, but in what way is this not effectively the same as it was previously? When taking the markup from the original comment and viewing the output both as input into the Classic editor and then saved again in Gutenberg, I see no difference.

@lkraav

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Author

lkraav commented Jul 26, 2018

When taking the markup from the original comment and viewing the output both as input into the Classic editor and then saved again in Gutenberg, I see no difference.

@aduth

  1. do you have Classic Editor plugin enabled? I've seen this make a significant behavior difference in the past. Either way, all my testing is without Classic Editor plugin (btw this plugin is quite confusing to talk about in the context of classic editor), because I've not seen anywhere that it's going to be required to have a non-markup-breaking Gutenberg installation.

  2. which Gutenberg branch, version, commit did you run your observation on?

Here's the breakage, using 3900-unautop branch:

ORIGINAL CONTENT

<h2>Shinier than yours, meatbag.</h2>

You can crush me but you can't crush my spirit! Is today's hectic lifestyle making you tense and impatient? It's a T. It goes "tuh". I'll tell them you went down prying the wedding ring off his cold, dead finger.

[column]

I daresay that Fry has discovered the smelliest object in the known universe! For the last time, I don't like lilacs! Your 'first' wife was the one who liked lilacs! No argument here. A true inspiration for the children.

[/column]

Hello world.

GUTENBERG WRAPS SHORTCODES IN <p>

<h2>Shinier than yours, meatbag.</h2>
<p>This is a post <strong>WITHOUT</strong> Gutenberg markup.</p>
<p><a href="https://github.com/WordPress/gutenberg/issues/3900">#3900</a></p>
<p>You can crush me but you can't crush my spirit! Is today's hectic lifestyle making you tense and impatient? It's a T. It goes "tuh". I'll tell them you went down prying the wedding ring off his cold, dead finger.</p>
<p>[column grid="2" span="1"]</p>
<p>I daresay that Fry has discovered the smelliest object in the known universe! For the last time, I don't like lilacs! Your 'first' wife was the one who liked lilacs! No argument here. A true inspiration for the children.</p>
<p>[/column]</p>
<p>[column grid="2" span="1"]</p>
<p>Hello world.</p>
<p>[/column]</p>

I do see @pento pushing a new (to me) strategy in #8077 (comment) maybe this a game-changer here?

@pento

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

pento commented Jul 26, 2018

@lkraav: Yah, we did a bit of brainstorming earlier, and came up with this solution. If you could test out the current state of #8077 and let us know if it behaves correctly for you, that'd be super helpful. 🙂

@lkraav

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Author

lkraav commented Jul 26, 2018

Yah, we did a bit of brainstorming earlier, and came up with this solution. If you could test out the current state of #8077 and let us know if it behaves correctly for you, that'd be super helpful. slightly_smiling_face

Thanks, can attend in 2 hrs.

@lkraav

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Author

lkraav commented Jul 26, 2018

If you could test out the current state of #8077 and let us know if it behaves correctly for you, that'd be super helpful.

@pento

  1. it seems like there's improvement in the editor
  • switching to Code Editor avoids changing markup almost 100% - line break after <h2> still gets removed
  • ... but this change surprisingly does not get saved when you click Update. It's like 99% WYSIWYG.
  1. frontend output is still rendering the shortcode with broken <p> tags
		<h2>Shinier than yours, meatbag.</h2>
<p>This is a post <strong>WITHOUT</strong> Gutenberg markup.</p>
<p><a href="https://github.com/WordPress/gutenberg/issues/3900">#3900</a></p>
<p>You can crush me but you can&#8217;t crush my spirit! Is today&#8217;s hectic lifestyle making you tense and impatient? It&#8217;s a T. It goes &#8220;tuh&#8221;. I&#8217;ll tell them you went down prying the wedding ring off his cold, dead finger.</p>
<div class="column-grid column-grid-2"><div class="column column-span-1 column-push-0 column-first"></p><!-- HERE -->
<p>I daresay that Fry has discovered the smelliest object in the known universe! For the last time, I don&#8217;t like lilacs! Your &#8216;first&#8217; wife was the one who liked lilacs! No argument here. A true inspiration for the children.</p>
<p>
</div>
<div class="column column-span-1 column-push-0 column-last"></p><!-- HERE -->
<p>Hello world.</p>
<p>
</div></div>

Fortunately, this break seems to be https://core.trac.wordpress.org/ticket/14050 territory. After activating my "improved regex" microplugin, broken paragraphs disappear as they should (and have for the past x years).

I also verified w/ 3.3.0 - breakage is the same, so #8077 or 3900-autop branch does not have a regression there.

SUMMARY

Considering the only thing missing is the "stretch goal" of "Convert to blocks" also being able to blockify content between enclosing shortcodes

[shortcode]
I want be blockified, too, but not there yet.
[/shortcode]

I'd suggest calling #3900 resolved and I file a new issue for enclosing shortcode blockification.

It's definitely a big win that we got "Convert to blocks" simply convert shortcodes better right now, even if the content in there stays as is. Frontend rendering the_content filters fortunately should help it out.

@danielbachhuber

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

danielbachhuber commented Jul 26, 2018

Sounds good, thanks @lkraav

@pento pento closed this in #8077 Jul 27, 2018

pento added a commit that referenced this issue Jul 27, 2018

Maintain backwards compatible behaviour `post_content` (#8077)
When transforming classic content to a shortcode block, or having a post with a single freeform block in it, `post_content` ended up in a state that wasn't backward compatible.

This change ensures that un-blockified posts can continue to be used in the Classic Editor as expected, and that the shortcode block both renders in Gutenberg correctly, and on the front end.

Fixes #3900.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
You can’t perform that action at this time.
You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session. You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.