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 leading slash when searching blocks in block inserter #8466

merged 5 commits into from Aug 20, 2018


None yet
4 participants

johnwatkins0 commented Aug 3, 2018


Resolves #7446 by ignoring a leading slash when searching blocks in the block inserter. After this change, users who are accustomed to triggering a quick block search by typing "/" in a paragraph block can expect the same behavior from the block inserter search.

How has this been tested?

I added one unit test to cover the change and verified locally in the editor that the block search works as expected.

Types of changes

This is an update to an existing feature that modifies its behavior slightly (in the case where a user types a leading slash into the block inserter search).


  • My code is tested.
  • My code follows the WordPress code style.
  • My code follows the accessibility standards.
  • My code has proper inline documentation.

Could you rebase this in consideration of the latest changes from the now-merged #8707 ?

@mtias mtias added this to the 3.7 milestone Aug 18, 2018

gziolo added some commits Aug 20, 2018


This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment

gziolo Aug 20, 2018


@aduth - I rebased this PR to work after #8707 changes were introduced.


gziolo commented Aug 20, 2018

@aduth - I rebased this PR to work after #8707 changes were introduced.


aduth approved these changes Aug 20, 2018

Thanks @gziolo . I also pushed an update to move description of normalization behaviors inline to the function, as they were (case in point) prone to falling out of date.

LGTM assuming tests pass 👍

@aduth aduth merged commit bc4d7a2 into WordPress:master Aug 20, 2018

2 checks passed

codecov/project Absolute coverage decreased by -<.01% but relative coverage increased by +49.15% compared to 2d9f53b
continuous-integration/travis-ci/pr The Travis CI build passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment