Reusable blocks: Improve UX for non-privileged users #12378

noisysocks · 2018-11-28T07:59:04Z

What this is

Improves the UX of creating, editing, and deleting a reusable block when logged in as an author or contributor by disabling the Add to Reusable Blocks, Edit, and Remove from Reusable Blocks buttons when necessary.

This is accomplished under the hood by introducing the canUser() selector to core-data which allows callers to query whether the REST API supports performing a given action on a given resource, e.g. one can query whether the logged in user can create posts by running wp.data.select( 'core' ).canUser( 'create', 'posts' ).

The existing hasUploadPermissions() selector is changed to use canUser( 'create', 'media' ) under the hood.

How it looks

Add to Reusable Blocks button is visible for admins and editors:

Add to Reusable Blocks button is hidden for contributors:

Edit button is enabled and Remove from Reusable Blocks is visible for admins and editors:

Edit button is disabled and Remove from Reusable Blocks is hidden for authors:

How to test

Try to create a reusable block as a contributor. The Add to Reusable Blocks button should be disabled.
Try to updating another user's reusable block as an author. The Edit button should be disabled.
Try to deleting another user's reusable block as an author or contributor. The Remove from Reusable Blocks button should be disabled.

noisysocks · 2018-12-05T08:17:58Z

This should be ready to review!

~~@mtias: Reckon we could plop this back into 4.7? I'd like to have this fixed for 5.0.1 since it's a pretty awful UX otherwise. Not sure where we are timing wise.~~ edit: Eh, 5.0.2 is OK 🙂

talldan

I like the canUser function, it's a nice way to express that functionality.

I think that flash of the disabled state of the block settings menu item is something that needs to be fixed.

Preloading could work, but I think checking the resolution state is also possible and worth doing as well, since it shouldn't just depend on preloading. I think this is what embeds do:
https://github.com/WordPress/gutenberg/blob/master/packages/core-data/src/selectors.js#L41

packages/core-data/src/selectors.js

talldan · 2018-12-06T04:56:56Z

packages/editor/src/components/block-settings-menu/reusable-block-convert-button.js

@@ -80,6 +83,7 @@ export default compose( [
 				! isReusableBlock( blocks[ 0 ] ) ||
 				! getReusableBlock( blocks[ 0 ].attributes.ref )
 			),
+			canCreateBlocks: canUser( 'create', 'blocks' ),


For media upload permissions the media options request is preloaded. I think it might be worth doing the same here.

I noticed a 'flash' where the menu item went from being enabled to disabled when opening the block settings menu while the blocks options request was in progress.

👌 I've added this OPTIONS request to the list of requests we preload in bc0709f.

Noting that this is a change we'll need to make to core after this PR is merged.

packages/editor/src/components/block-settings-menu/reusable-block-convert-button.js

talldan · 2018-12-06T05:04:27Z

packages/core-data/src/selectors.js

+ *
+ * @return {boolean} Whether or not the user can perform the action.
+ */
+export function canUser( state, action, resource, id ) {


I like the expressiveness of the canUser selector 😄

Props to @gziolo for suggesting the API 🙂

I'm glad you like it :)

talldan · 2018-12-06T05:09:21Z

packages/editor/src/components/block-settings-menu/reusable-block-delete-button.js

 		return {
-			reusableBlock: block && isReusableBlock( block ) ? getReusableBlock( block.attributes.ref ) : null,
+			id,
+			isDisabled: !! id && (


I think same comment here regarding disabling vs. hiding.

Also noting that in testing I didn't see the flash of this switching from enabled to disabled. That seems to be because the GET request for the block has already been made and cached. If an OPTIONS request was made instead of a GET request the issue would resurface.

Have changed this to remove the button instead of disabling in 708a50484fc99537a5f3368b4dbb66e134198741.

We can't preload these requests because we don't know the reusable block ID ahead of time.

Yep, I do understand that we can't preload. My worry is that it's only by coincidence that the user's capability is known ahead of time. If the underlying code switches to use OPTIONS instead of GET, users would start seeing this button initially be clickable but then suddenly disappear.

This is probably a nitpick though and not a blocker. I'm not even sure what the best UX would be.

Ah, got it! Not sure if defaulting to disabled versus defaulting to enabled would be a better experience. Both aren't ideal. I matched the existing hasUploadPermissions behaviour which defaults to enabled.

I think that, further down the track, core-data should modify the canUser state whenever it receives an Allow header from any response, and not just when the canUser() resolver is called.

Yeah, that's a nice idea. Not sure how it'd work, but a nice idea 😄

talldan · 2018-12-06T05:26:26Z

packages/core-data/src/resolvers.js

+			path,
+			// Ideally this would always be an OPTIONS request, but unfortunately there's
+			// a bug in the REST API which causes the Allow header to not be sent on
+			// OPTIONS requests to /posts/:id routes.


Is that just for /post/:id of for the all resources? I mentioned that because the logic below happens for all resources (so doesn't match the comment).

Is there a ticket/issue covering the bug?

I've only checked posts but I suspect the bug affects all REST endpoints. Will do some investigating and open up a Trac ticket 👍

If this is the case, it should be fixed /cc @danielbachhuber @kadamwhite

If you just want the Allow header, what about doing a HEAD request instead of GET.

Looking into this further:

The Allow header is generated by rest_send_allow_header(), which is called on rest_post_dispatch.

https://github.com/WordPress/WordPress/blob/d2782aabc51f387c405eacc2ddbd38dfdacd4405/wp-includes/rest-api.php#L628

https://github.com/WordPress/WordPress/blob/d2782aabc51f387c405eacc2ddbd38dfdacd4405/wp-includes/rest-api.php#L167

rest_post_dispatch is called for every response (I think):

https://github.com/WordPress/WordPress/blob/47d32decd6668b3ccf100acc8a40aa0a9fc35003/wp-includes/rest-api/class-wp-rest-server.php#L352

It seems like Allow should be present for OPTIONS. It's an officially supported header: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Methods/OPTIONS

Can you provide steps to reproduce?

I briefly debugged this when I noticed the issue and from memory it was something to do with rest_handle_options_request not calling $request->set_url_params() unlike dispatch which correctly parses and sets URL parameters.

Can you provide steps to reproduce?

Create a reusable block

Perform a GET http://local.wordpress.test/wp-json/wp/v2/blocks request and note the ID of the reusable block

Perform a OPTIONS http://local.wordpress.test/wp-json/wp/v2/blocks/27 request, replacing 27 with the ID from step 2. Note that an Allow header is not sent back

Perform a GET http://local.wordpress.test/wp-json/wp/v2/blocks/27 request, replacing 27 with the ID from step 2. Note that an Allow header is sent back

Above steps also work with posts: just change blocks to posts.

I created a ticket here: https://core.trac.wordpress.org/ticket/45753

Added a link to the Trac ticket in cf2d701.

noisysocks · 2018-12-06T06:00:43Z

packages/core-data/src/resolvers.js

@@ -103,7 +103,46 @@ export function* getEmbedPreview( url ) {
 * Requests Upload Permissions from the REST API.
 */
 export function* hasUploadPermissions() {


Should I mark this as deprecated? I'm unsure on what the policy is post 5.0 🙂

I don't know either. Might be worth pinging someone on slack. Will hold off approving until the answer is known.

cc. @youknowriad

It's probably fine leaving this as is where we support both canUser and hasUploadPermissions. We can always deprecate later.

We might want to use a soft deprecation by using @deprecated in JSDoc and maybe filter out all actions and selectors from the generated docs.

Yes, for now, we should leave those, we can add a deprecation message if needed but without specifying a version.

This is something we should discuss more in the next #core-js chats.

I noted this in the agenda for the next meeting.

@noisysocks I noticed you @deprecated the selector, but the resolver hasn't been deprecated. I guess technically they're the same interface and the resolver wouldn't be called directly, but I wanted to double-check if it was intentional.

That's a good point. I think selectors are the public interface here but it wouldn't hurt to have the @deprecated attribute in the resolver as well.

Done in 4ea46a5!

noisysocks · 2018-12-14T03:10:19Z

@gziolo any thoughts on this one?

gziolo · 2018-12-14T08:43:56Z

packages/core-data/src/resolvers.js

@@ -103,7 +103,46 @@ export function* getEmbedPreview( url ) {
 * Requests Upload Permissions from the REST API.
 */
 export function* hasUploadPermissions() {


We might want to use a soft deprecation by using @deprecated in JSDoc and maybe filter out all actions and selectors from the generated docs.

gziolo · 2018-12-14T08:46:30Z

packages/core-data/src/resolvers.js

+
+	const method = methods[ action ];
+	if ( ! method ) {
+		throw new Error( `'${ action }' is not a valid action` );


We aren't consistent, but probably we should end all sentences with a period.

👍 ccf4936

gziolo · 2018-12-14T08:48:32Z

packages/core-data/src/resolvers.js

+		throw new Error( `'${ action }' is not a valid action` );
+	}
+
+	const path = id ? `/wp/v2/${ resource }/${ id }` : `/wp/v2/${ resource }`;


Suggested change

const path = id ? `/wp/v2/${ resource }/${ id }` : `/wp/v2/${ resource }`;

const path = '/wp/v2/${ resource }' + ( id ? `/${ id }` : '' );

would be shorter, not sure what reads better though :)

I like that with the more verbose version that you can glance at the code and see the "shape" of the URL.

gziolo · 2018-12-14T08:49:18Z

packages/core-data/src/resolvers.js

@@ -116,5 +155,7 @@ export function* hasUploadPermissions() {
 		allowHeader = get( response, [ 'headers', 'Allow' ], '' );
 	}

-	yield receiveUploadPermissions( includes( allowHeader, 'POST' ) );
+	const key = compact( [ action, resource, id ] ).join( '/' );


Nice trick :)

You'd need template strings for the first part:

Suggested change

const key = compact( [ action, resource, id ] ).join( '/' );

const path = `/wp/v2/${ resource }` + ( id ? `/${ id }` : '' );

I think it's a bit easier to sort out though, yeah.

Was this suggestion meant to go in this thread? #12378 (comment)

gziolo · 2018-12-14T08:50:37Z

packages/core-data/src/resolvers.js

-	yield receiveUploadPermissions( includes( allowHeader, 'POST' ) );
+	const key = compact( [ action, resource, id ] ).join( '/' );
+	const isAllowed = includes( allowHeader, method );
+	yield receiveUserPermissions( key, isAllowed );


Should it be named receiveUserPermission using singular version to reflect that you can provide only one permission at the time?

At the very least could we add the ticket URL in the comment so it can be tracked/checked on?

Should it be named receiveUserPermission using singular version to reflect that you can provide only one permission at the time?

👍 02d9502

At the very least could we add the ticket URL in the comment so it can be tracked/checked on?

I think this is referring to this thread? #12378 (comment) If so I added a link to the Trac ticket in
cf2d701.

gziolo · 2018-12-14T08:54:35Z

packages/core-data/src/test/selectors.js

+		const state = deepFreeze( {
+			userPermissions: {},
+		} );
+		expect( canUser( state, 'create', 'media' ) ).toBe( true );


That's surprising that we set true as a default value. What if REST API call takes 5 seconds and UI would be rendered before that happens?

Yeah, true as the default seems wrong to me. I'd rather UI update after API requests and have extra settings added than them removed.

I've changed canUser() to return false by default in 62bcb19.

gziolo · 2018-12-14T09:00:38Z

packages/editor/src/components/block-settings-menu/reusable-block-delete-button.js

 		};
 	} ),
-	withDispatch( ( dispatch, { onToggle = noop } ) => {
+	withDispatch( ( dispatch, { clientId, onToggle = noop }, { select } ) => {


select - that's interesting to see it have much broader application than I anticipated. I hope there are no drawbacks of that approach :)

I like that in this case it lets us avoid passing unnecessary props to the component.

gziolo · 2018-12-14T09:01:39Z

packages/editor/src/components/block-settings-menu/reusable-block-convert-button.js

-				! isReusableBlock( blocks[ 0 ] ) ||
-				! getReusableBlock( blocks[ 0 ].attributes.ref )
+			// Show 'Convert to Regular Block' when selected block is a reusable block
+			isVisible: isReusable || (


It's probably better to move isVisible outside of the object - the way it was before. It makes return value harder follow at the moment.

👍 1c3f722

gziolo · 2018-12-14T09:05:25Z

packages/core-data/src/resolvers.js

+			path,
+			// Ideally this would always be an OPTIONS request, but unfortunately there's
+			// a bug in the REST API which causes the Allow header to not be sent on
+			// OPTIONS requests to /posts/:id routes.


If this is the case, it should be fixed /cc @danielbachhuber @kadamwhite

gziolo · 2018-12-14T09:07:00Z

packages/core-data/src/selectors.js

+ * @param {string}  resource REST resource to check, e.g. 'media' or 'posts'.
+ * @param {?string} id       ID of the rest resource to check.
+ *
+ * @return {boolean} Whether or not the user can perform the action.


Can we add the information about the default behavior when it is not found in the store?

👍 Done as part of 62bcb19.

gziolo · 2018-12-14T09:11:22Z

The existing hasUploadPermissions() selector is changed to use canUser( 'create', 'media' ) under the hood.

@imath - I think you implemented the original version of this behavior when working on media upload permissions. Can you double check if the generalized version is still correct?

@danielbachhuber or @kadamwhite - it would be nice to get your review on the bits that interact with REST API.

@noisysocks - nice work on the PR. I personally think it is quite close to be considered ready. My comments are mostly nitpicks. The only important thing from my perspective is to ensure that canUser has the best strategy for returning the default value. It feels like assuming there is no permission is safer.

danielbachhuber · 2018-12-15T00:11:45Z

Improves the UX of creating, editing, and deleting a reusable block when logged in as an author or contributor by disabling the Add to Reusable Blocks, Edit, and Remove from Reusable Blocks buttons when necessary.

Does this change the UI at all? If so, can you include screenshots and/or GIFs in the description?

danielbachhuber · 2018-12-15T00:13:44Z

Also:

The only important thing from my perspective is to ensure that canUser has the best strategy for returning the default value.

At first glance, I'm not sure how well this canUser abstraction is going to work in practice. WordPress' roles and capabilities system is quite nuanced, and abstractions on top of it can be problematic. Just want to flag that.

imath · 2018-12-15T07:32:39Z

@gziolo Hi,

I've just tested the PR. I confirm that being logged in as an Administrator I'm still able to upload files and that being logged in as a contributor I can only use external URLs to add media. So it seems to be working as expected for this part 👍

@noisysocks FYI I also tested the Reusable blocks UI changes being logged in as a contributor:

I confirm I cannot create new reusable block.
I can use another user reusable block but i cannot edit it.
I can access to the /wp-admin/edit.php?post_type=wp_block manage screen but can only export the blocks created by others as json.

Feedback addressed

tofumatt

This is looking good—I like the canUser selector API, but I think there's some code cleanup here to do and I have two concerns:

why is true the default response for canUser()?
Why are we ignoring the API request throwing an error?

tofumatt · 2018-12-20T20:48:23Z

docs/designers-developers/developers/data/data-core.md

+
+ * state: Data state.
+ * action: Action to check. One of: 'create', 'read', 'update',
+                          'delete'.


This indentation is kinda odd; I'm not sure why this is indented where it is...

This indentation is kinda odd; I'm not sure why this is indented where it is...

Likely because it's unprocessed from the space-aligned JSDoc. Could probably be improved with some additional processing (lines.map( trim ).join( ' ' )?). It has no difference in the Markdown preview though, since the whitespace is collapsed.

tofumatt · 2018-12-20T21:31:09Z

packages/block-library/src/block/edit.js

@@ -159,6 +162,7 @@ export default compose( [
 			isFetching: isFetchingReusableBlock( ref ),
 			isSaving: isSavingReusableBlock( ref ),
 			block: reusableBlock ? getBlock( reusableBlock.clientId ) : null,
+			canUpdateBlock: !! reusableBlock && ! reusableBlock.isTemporary && canUser( 'update', 'blocks', ref ),


Any reason you're checking !! reusableBlock rather than just using reusableBlock? Just curious!

Any reason you're checking !! reusableBlock rather than just using reusableBlock? Just curious!

If a value is falsey in this scenario, the specific value is returned in the left-hand of the condition.

If reusableBlock was undefined for example, without the !!, canUpdateBlock would be passed as undefined, despite its name indicating that it would be a boolean. As written, it satisfies an implicit contract of providing a boolean value. Practically speaking this would rarely have much an impact, except in a scenario where someone expected it to be the particular boolean form (=== false).

tofumatt · 2018-12-20T22:47:18Z

packages/core-data/src/resolvers.js

@@ -116,5 +155,7 @@ export function* hasUploadPermissions() {
 		allowHeader = get( response, [ 'headers', 'Allow' ], '' );
 	}

-	yield receiveUploadPermissions( includes( allowHeader, 'POST' ) );
+	const key = compact( [ action, resource, id ] ).join( '/' );


You'd need template strings for the first part:

Suggested change

const key = compact( [ action, resource, id ] ).join( '/' );

const path = `/wp/v2/${ resource }` + ( id ? `/${ id }` : '' );

I think it's a bit easier to sort out though, yeah.

tofumatt · 2018-12-20T22:48:11Z

packages/core-data/src/resolvers.js

-	yield receiveUploadPermissions( includes( allowHeader, 'POST' ) );
+	const key = compact( [ action, resource, id ] ).join( '/' );
+	const isAllowed = includes( allowHeader, method );
+	yield receiveUserPermissions( key, isAllowed );


At the very least could we add the ticket URL in the comment so it can be tracked/checked on?

tofumatt · 2018-12-20T22:49:06Z

packages/core-data/src/resolvers.js

+			parse: false,
+		} );
+	} catch ( error ) {
+		return;


😟 This seems like it should throw. Why are we catching an ignoring the error without doing anything with it?

error here refers to the API error that resulted from our OPTIONS request. Doing nothing is correct in this case as we want to leave the store as is. I've added a comment to explain this in e0a7269.

tofumatt · 2018-12-20T22:51:24Z

packages/core-data/src/test/selectors.js

+		const state = deepFreeze( {
+			userPermissions: {},
+		} );
+		expect( canUser( state, 'create', 'media' ) ).toBe( true );


Yeah, true as the default seems wrong to me. I'd rather UI update after API requests and have extra settings added than them removed.

tofumatt · 2018-12-20T22:52:04Z

packages/editor/src/components/block-settings-menu/reusable-block-convert-button.js

+			blocks.length === 1 &&
+			blocks[ 0 ] &&
+			isReusableBlock( blocks[ 0 ] ) &&
+			!! getReusableBlock( blocks[ 0 ].attributes.ref )


Any reason to use !! here? I just always find it weird to see 🤷‍♂️

It's to ensure that typeof isReusable === 'boolean'.

tofumatt · 2018-12-20T22:52:49Z

packages/editor/src/components/block-settings-menu/reusable-block-convert-button.js

+
+				every( blocks, ( block ) => (
+					// Guard against the case where a regular block has *just* been converted
+					!! block &&


Again, any reason for the !!?

It's to ensure that typeof isVisible === 'boolean'.

talldan · 2019-01-23T05:10:43Z

IIRC this one also needed a change in core to preload that request.

https://github.com/WordPress/gutenberg/pull/12378/files#diff-620130744b6b73b822a3df609671d930R1089

noisysocks · 2019-01-23T05:43:53Z

Getting this in early so that there's time for it to bake in 5.0.

IIRC this one also needed a change in core to preload that request.

Thanks for the reminder. I wonder what the best way to do this is... Do we check how the plugin PHP files differ when updating Core's script dependencies? (e.g. git diff v4.9 v5.0 **.php) If so, we'll catch this change. If not, perhaps opening a ticket is the safest bet, though I'm not actually sure when we plan on updating Core to use Gutenberg 5.0 scripts.

talldan · 2019-01-23T06:03:55Z

@noisysocks Not sure. This one was done as a trac ticket, so maybe that's the best option:
https://core.trac.wordpress.org/changeset/43833

aduth · 2019-01-23T19:36:38Z

packages/core-data/package.json

@@ -24,6 +24,7 @@
 		"@babel/runtime": "^7.0.0",
 		"@wordpress/api-fetch": "file:../api-fetch",
 		"@wordpress/data": "file:../data",
+		"@wordpress/deprecated": "file:../deprecated",


There should have been a corresponding change to the root package-lock.json. I'm not sure how this passed the build task which checks for local uncommitted changes, but it shouldn't have.

Huh! Looks like check-local-changes doesn't pick this up because precheck-local-changes doesn't run npm install. CI doesn't pick it up because it uses npm ci.

Will fix this up in a seperate PR.

paaljoachim · 2019-02-06T09:10:03Z

A test that I made:
Contributor made a new post. Submitted for Review.
Logged in as admin. Went to the newly created contributor post and took it over. Made a reusable block. Clicked to save as pending.
Logged in as contributor. Went to post. Noticed that contributor could delete the reusable block.

talldan · 2019-02-06T11:48:47Z

@paaljoachim What version are you testing against? This has only just been released in the plugin today afaik.

I couldn't reproduce testing against master.

paaljoachim · 2019-02-06T11:58:19Z

Hey Daniel @talldan

Lets just call it an error on my end. I made the following comment:
https://make.wordpress.org/test/2019/02/05/call-for-testing-gutenberg-5-0/#comment-1170

Improves the UX of creating, editing, and deleting a reusable block when logged in as an author or contributor by disabling the _Add to Reusable Blocks_, _Edit_, and _Remove from Reusable Blocks_ buttons when necessary. This is accomplished under the hood by introducing the `canUser()` selector to `core-data` which allows callers to query whether the REST API supports performing a given action on a given resource, e.g. one can query whether the logged in user can create posts by running `wp.data.select( 'core' ).canUser( 'create', 'posts' )`. The existing `hasUploadPermissions()` selector is changed to use `canUser( 'create', 'media' )` under the hood.

noisysocks added [Type] Bug An existing feature does not function as intended [Status] In Progress Tracking issues with work in progress [Feature] Synced Patterns Related to synced patterns (formerly reusable blocks) labels Nov 28, 2018

noisysocks added this to the 4.7 milestone Nov 28, 2018

mtias modified the milestones: 4.7, 4.8 Nov 29, 2018

noisysocks force-pushed the fix/non-privileged-reusable-blocks-ux branch from a1856af to 9a4cb69 Compare December 5, 2018 08:10

noisysocks removed the [Status] In Progress Tracking issues with work in progress label Dec 5, 2018

noisysocks requested review from youknowriad, gziolo and talldan December 5, 2018 08:13

noisysocks force-pushed the fix/non-privileged-reusable-blocks-ux branch from 9a4cb69 to 3c1db96 Compare December 6, 2018 00:57

talldan previously requested changes Dec 6, 2018

View reviewed changes

noisysocks commented Dec 6, 2018

View reviewed changes

noisysocks force-pushed the fix/non-privileged-reusable-blocks-ux branch 2 times, most recently from 708a504 to 9ec72e8 Compare December 7, 2018 03:53

gziolo reviewed Dec 14, 2018

View reviewed changes

gziolo requested review from danielbachhuber and kadamwhite December 14, 2018 09:07

gziolo added the REST API Interaction Related to REST API label Dec 14, 2018

tofumatt previously requested changes Dec 20, 2018

View reviewed changes

noisysocks force-pushed the fix/non-privileged-reusable-blocks-ux branch from 9ec72e8 to cf2d701 Compare December 24, 2018 04:59

danielbachhuber removed their request for review December 26, 2018 17:04

noisysocks added 7 commits January 23, 2019 16:02

Move isVisible logic into its own variable

1890cfc

Add comment explaining why we ignore API errors

23c65ac

Typo: s/4.8/4.9/

d85724a

Add @deprecated comment to hasUploadPermissions() resolver

5546c58

Use deprecated() to mark hasUploadPermissions() as deprecated

692e12f

Typo: s/ot/to/

8797da3

Have canUser() return undefined by default

7b8d040

noisysocks force-pushed the fix/non-privileged-reusable-blocks-ux branch from 15ff121 to 7b8d040 Compare January 23, 2019 05:02

Update version: s/4.9/5.0/

d6a6b1c

noisysocks merged commit 33d2acb into master Jan 23, 2019

noisysocks deleted the fix/non-privileged-reusable-blocks-ux branch January 23, 2019 05:41

aduth reviewed Jan 23, 2019

View reviewed changes

noisysocks mentioned this pull request Jan 24, 2019

Fix Travis CI not detecting uncommitted changes to package-lock.json #13462

Closed

This was referenced Feb 4, 2019

Bump plugin version to 5.0.0-rc.1 #13652

Merged

Bump plugin version to 5.0.0 #13689

Closed

jorgefilipecosta mentioned this pull request Feb 6, 2019

Bump plugin version to 5.0.0 #13692

Merged

talldan mentioned this pull request Apr 5, 2019

"Move to Trash" button doesn't respect 'delete_post' capability #14828

Closed

This was referenced Apr 18, 2019

Reusable Blocks: Preload user permissions #15061

Merged

Testing: Skip unreliable end-to-end tests #15059

Merged

jsnajdr mentioned this pull request Nov 30, 2020

apiFetch preloading middleware ships 1MB+ of redundant REST data #27370

Closed

MaxMood96 mentioned this pull request Mar 7, 2024

[Snyk] Security upgrade webdriverio from 8.16.20 to 8.33.0 MaxMood96/gutenberg#146

Open

naiba4 mentioned this pull request Mar 8, 2024

[Snyk] Security upgrade webdriverio from 8.16.20 to 8.33.0 naiba4/gutenberg#47

Open

	const path = id ? `/wp/v2/${ resource }/${ id }` : `/wp/v2/${ resource }`;
	const path = '/wp/v2/${ resource }' + ( id ? `/${ id }` : '' );

	const key = compact( [ action, resource, id ] ).join( '/' );
	const path = `/wp/v2/${ resource }` + ( id ? `/${ id }` : '' );

Reusable blocks: Improve UX for non-privileged users #12378

Reusable blocks: Improve UX for non-privileged users #12378

Conversation

noisysocks commented Nov 28, 2018 • edited

What this is

How it looks

How to test

noisysocks commented Dec 5, 2018 • edited

talldan left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

noisysocks Dec 14, 2018 • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

talldan Dec 6, 2018 • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

noisysocks Dec 24, 2018 • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

noisysocks Dec 24, 2018 • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

noisysocks commented Dec 14, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

gziolo commented Dec 14, 2018 • edited

danielbachhuber commented Dec 15, 2018

danielbachhuber commented Dec 15, 2018

imath commented Dec 15, 2018 • edited

tofumatt left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

noisysocks commented Nov 28, 2018 •

edited

noisysocks commented Dec 5, 2018 •

edited

noisysocks Dec 14, 2018 •

edited

talldan Dec 6, 2018 •

edited

noisysocks Dec 24, 2018 •

edited

noisysocks Dec 24, 2018 •

edited

gziolo commented Dec 14, 2018 •

edited

imath commented Dec 15, 2018 •

edited

talldan commented Jan 23, 2019 •

edited

noisysocks commented Jan 23, 2019 •

edited