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

Ignore "Disable visual editor" setting #5670

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Mar 20, 2018

Conversation

Projects
None yet
3 participants
@mcsf
Contributor

mcsf commented Mar 16, 2018

Fixes #5667

See wp-includes/class-wp-editor's behavior around self::$this_tinymce:

https://github.com/WordPress/WordPress/blob/176a28905041fd79c439946a4ba290a87db5991f/wp-includes/class-wp-editor.php#L360

How Has This Been Tested?

Follow steps in parent issue.

Types of changes

Bug fix.

Checklist:

  • My code is tested.
  • My code follows the WordPress code style.
  • My code has proper inline documentation.
@mcsf

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@mcsf

mcsf Mar 19, 2018

Contributor

Related: #4634

Should Gutenberg respect the rich_editing user option?

There's room for different interpretations. This PR is concerned with avoiding the total failure to load the editor described in #5667, but further steps may be:

  • defaulting to Code view if rich_editing is false;
  • defaulting to the legacy editor altogether.

The latter is much more aggressive. The decision hinges on the what we believe are the needs that a user expresses by disabling this setting. For instance, can it signal a stronger technical imperative (e.g., no JS execution desired?) than a simple UX choice? Is a11y a factor for those who disable it? If so, can we ensure that Gutenberg's Code view fulfills these needs, thereby eschewing the cop-out of redirecting to the classic editor?

Contributor

mcsf commented Mar 19, 2018

Related: #4634

Should Gutenberg respect the rich_editing user option?

There's room for different interpretations. This PR is concerned with avoiding the total failure to load the editor described in #5667, but further steps may be:

  • defaulting to Code view if rich_editing is false;
  • defaulting to the legacy editor altogether.

The latter is much more aggressive. The decision hinges on the what we believe are the needs that a user expresses by disabling this setting. For instance, can it signal a stronger technical imperative (e.g., no JS execution desired?) than a simple UX choice? Is a11y a factor for those who disable it? If so, can we ensure that Gutenberg's Code view fulfills these needs, thereby eschewing the cop-out of redirecting to the classic editor?

@aduth

aduth approved these changes Mar 20, 2018

Noting further improvements to considering the setting, I agree this is a good interim fix to the immediate issue 👍

@mtias mtias merged commit 1f1f49d into master Mar 20, 2018

2 checks passed

codecov/project 43.73% remains the same compared to 8434cc9
Details
continuous-integration/travis-ci/pr The Travis CI build passed
Details

@mtias mtias deleted the fix/5667-missing-tinymce-dep branch Mar 20, 2018

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment