RFC 50: Commenting in the Wagtail Editor #50
Conversation
jacobtoppm
changed the title
jacobtoppm
changed the title
|
|
||
| ### Field and Block Commenting | ||
|
|
||
| This will be the standard form of commenting. Comments can be left on either a field or a StreamField block. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I’m not sure I understand the value of adding a comment on a StreamField block, as opposed to just the field(s) within a block.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This was something that came out of preliminary UX discussion - they thought it might be too fine grained/end up with button overload to allow commenting on every field inside every block, so suggested limiting it to blocks instead.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sounds like we're mixing terminology here - technically everything nested at any level inside a StreamField is a block (including things like CharBlock). Is the proposal to only allow comments on immediate child blocks of the top-level StreamBlock of a StreamField, then?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm pretty sure we discussed having both, and the content path example on line 34 suggests that it would be possible to have comments on fields within a structblock.
One limitation of content paths is they cannot reference things in listblocks because the items in those don't have IDs that persist across revisions. It's a similar issue to recording offsets in rich text fields so we will probably have to update the content path on edit, or limit this to only allow comments on listblocks as a whole and not children within them.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That's a good point. I think things should ideally be commentable at any level - I believe the UX concern was largely about individual blocks within StructBlocks.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If there’s already been UX considerations / wireframes for this could you share them in the RFC @jacobtoppm?
GitHub allows commenting on any line of code, and word processor like Google Docs / Dropbox Paper allow commenting on any character of any line. So I don’t really see the concern with comments being too fine grained, or the risk of button overload (assuming the UI is designed similarly to other commenting systems).
I’m not quite sure this needs addressing as part of the RFC though.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm afraid there's not been very much yet - what I've said about the UX has been the product of a half hour conversation with them, that's all.
To clarify: are you suggesting we should allow inline commenting on any field? Or just that we should allow commenting on any block/field combo?
For the former, I'm suggesting allowing only inline commenting in Draftail because of the technical aspect - we can track how an inline entity moves and changes much more easily within a rich text field. UX suggested not enabling this by default just because it's a somewhat different user experience from commenting on a field as a whole, and they thought it might be confusing for the user.
|
Nice, I was looking for something like this yesterday. I wasn't aware of wagtail-review, I will try it out. I also think it is a great idea to have it built into the editor fields inside wagtail as laid out in your abstract! What is the usual timeline and steps for RFCs on wagtail? I've never followed an RFC from inception to production. |
Thanks for your interest! You can see a summary of the process on the readme, here: https://github.com/wagtail/rfcs. The next big step for this one would be discussing it again in a Wagtail core team meeting, deciding whether or not to accept it - then actual development. However, the timeline can definitely vary substantially, so it's hard to give an estimate here, though someone else might have a better idea than me - some have lingered for a long time, while some (like Wagtail Transfer) have been implemented within the next couple of months. As we have development time for this, assuming we accept some variant of the API changes, I'd hope more on the months scale for this one, aiming to go in with or shortly after the new workflow feature. |
|
@jacobtoppm since we now have commenting in Wagtail, I presume we can merge this RFC? |
|
Yep! Sounds good to me. |
Rendered