Feature: GiveWP BlockTypes

[jonwaldstein]

Description

Introducing GiveWP BlockTypes!

The idea for GiveWP BlockTypes is to take generic block models and convert them into identifiable first-class BlockType models that have type-enabled properties and built-in casting.

Instead of this:

case "givewp/text":
  return Text::make(
      $block->hasAttribute('fieldName') ?
          $block->getAttribute('fieldName') :
          $block->getShortName() . '-' . $blockIndex
  )->storeAsDonorMeta(
      $block->hasAttribute('storeAsDonorMeta') ? $block->getAttribute('storeAsDonorMeta') : false
  )->description($block->getAttribute('description'))
      ->defaultValue($block->getAttribute('defaultValue'))

We would have this:

case TextBlockType::name():
  $textBlockType = new \Give\FormBuilder\BlockTypes\TextBlockType($block);

  return Text::make(
      $textBlockType->fieldName ?? $block->getShortName() . '-' . $blockIndex
  )->storeAsDonorMeta($textBlockType->storeAsDonorMeta)
      ->description($textBlockType->description)
      ->defaultValue($textBlockType->defaultValue);

Thoughts:

• Would be nice to bridge the server block types and client blocks with a block.json spec. Maybe the $properties array actually gets generated by the block.json file one day 🤯
• Could explore more deep integration of these specific block types into our conversion process and/or programmatic block creation
• Integrating Block Types into the migration process would potentially be less tedious & more predictable.
• Sharing common attributes like label, fieldName, conditionalLogic, etc using traits.
• Adding methods like $blockType->toField() would make the block to field conversion cleaner and more testable.

Affects

Currently this is not being used anywhere.

Visuals

N/A

Testing Instructions

This would need to be done programatically

Pre-review Checklist

• Acceptance criteria satisfied and marked in related issue
• Relevant @unreleased tags included in DocBlocks
• Includes unit tests
• Reviewed by the designer (if follows a design)
• Self Review of code and UX completed

[jonwaldstein]

@kjohnson i've been gradually working on this during my Fridays. would love to get your thoughts on it.

[kjohnson]

I like this idea. It would certainly help to make the conversion process more easily testable and could be beneficial to mirror the typing on the server side.

[github-actions]

This PR is stale because it has been open 45 days with no activity. Stale PRs will NOT be automatically closed.

[jonwaldstein]

@kjohnson anymore thoughts on this? If not, I would like to merge and start using it 🧙

[kjohnson]

anymore thoughts on this? If not, I would like to merge and start using it 🧙

No objections here. I gave it another look over and it looks good to me.

Having tests here is a big help!