-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 384
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
Add support for comments #871
Conversation
|
||
// Set a target if needed. | ||
if ( ! $node->hasAttribute( 'target' ) ) { | ||
$node->setAttribute( 'target', '_blank' ); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Per the spec: https://www.ampproject.org/docs/reference/components/amp-form#target
Indicates where to display the form response after submitting the form. The value must be
_blank
or_top
.
The default I think should be _top
as that is closer to the default behavior for a form
. The actual default is _self
but that's not valid AMP. So I think this should be doing:
if ( ! in_array( $node->hasAttribute( 'target' ), array( '_top', '_blank' ) ) ) {
$node->setAttribute( 'target', '_top' );
// Correct action. | ||
if ( $node->hasAttribute( 'action' ) && ! $node->hasAttribute( 'action-xhr' ) ) { | ||
$action_url = $node->getAttribute( 'action' ); | ||
$action_url = str_replace( 'http:', '', $action_url ); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It's possible that http:
appears somewhere else in the URL. So then this should instead use a regex like: preg_replace( '#^http:(?=//)#', '', $action_url )
to ensure it only replaces at the beginning of the string.
$action_url = str_replace( 'http:', '', $action_url ); | ||
$node->setAttribute( 'action', $action_url ); | ||
|
||
if ( 'post' === $node->getAttribute( 'method' ) ) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Per above, this could compare with $method
.
continue; | ||
} | ||
|
||
if ( ! $node->hasAttribute( 'action' ) || '' === $node->getAttribute( 'action' ) ) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Per the spec: https://www.ampproject.org/docs/reference/components/amp-form#target
This attribute is required for
method=GET
. Formethod=POST
, theaction
attribute is invalid, useaction-xhr
instead.
Is the second part of this conditional intended to check if 'get' === $node->getAttribute( 'method' )
? Since the default method is get
then I think there should be something above that does:
$method = 'get';
if ( $node->hasAttribute( 'method' ) ) {
$method = strtolower( $node->getAttribute( 'method' ) );
}
And then use the $method
variable going forward.
} | ||
|
||
if ( ! $node->hasAttribute( 'action' ) || '' === $node->getAttribute( 'action' ) ) { | ||
$node->parentNode->removeChild( $node ); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I don't think this is right. If method
is get
and there is no action
, then what this really should do I think is just set the action
to be esc_url_raw( 'https://' . $_SERVER['HTTP_HOST'] . $_SERVER['REQUEST_URI'] )
, because the default action
for a form
is the URL that the form appears on.
@@ -35,7 +33,7 @@ public static function get_dom_from_content( $content ) { | |||
* Add utf-8 charset so loadHTML does not have problems parsing it. | |||
* See: http://php.net/manual/en/domdocument.loadhtml.php#78243 | |||
*/ | |||
$result = $dom->loadHTML( '<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body>' . $content . '</body></html>' ); | |||
$result = $dom->loadHTML( $document ); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Changes here are conflicting in develop
.
For handling form Usually a add_filter( 'wp_redirect', function( $location ) {
$location = wp_sanitize_redirect( $location );
header( "AMP-Redirect-To: $location" );
header( "Access-Control-Expose-Headers: AMP-Redirect-To", false );
return false; // Prevent header( 'Location:' ). I'm not sure this is necessary, or if we can just return $location.
}, 1000 ); Some more examples in general I've found at https://ampbyexample.com/components/amp-form/ |
includes/class-amp-theme-support.php
Outdated
// @todo Add more validation checking and potentially the whitelist sanitizer. | ||
$output = $dom->saveHTML(); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@DavidCramer I chatted about this with @ThierryA, but I think we should avoid having to load the entire response into the DOM for sanitization. I think that we should limit sanitization to just the post content, 3rd-party widgets, and other “leaf nodes” which we know are liable to be invalid AMP.
Is this right? Or am I off track? My worry is that loading the HTML into a DOMDocument for every request will be too heavy. But at the same time, if we're already spinning up a DOMDocument for every instance of the_content()
maybe it is actually better to just do one for the entire HTML. This would certainly simplify somethings for sanitizing widgets (cc @kienstra). It could also mean that we wouldn't have to have this ad hoc logic to search for elements requiring components: https://github.com/Automattic/amp-wp/blob/e60cb152a50e2ffbf5504d41aee859ad1d0e0baa/includes/class-amp-theme-support.php#L448-L455
Maybe we should decide to not prematurely optimize and instead keep things simple at first and just go ahead and sanitize the entire response. Thoughts?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
See findings at #875 (comment)
It seems we should definitely not sanitize the entire output buffer.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@westonruter whats the consensus now on this? It looks like your findings indicated it may be a good idea to sanitize the whole buffer output. I personally think this is the most efficient. I spoke with @ThierryA about this yesterday and he was going to do some tests, like you did.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm leaning toward sanitizing the entire output buffer now.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@DavidCramer do you want to build off of #875 (comment) in a new PR to serve as a basis for what you're introducing here with form sanitization?
@DavidCramer FYI: There won't need to be a |
@DavidCramer #882 was just merged to |
$url = substr( $url, 5 ); | ||
} | ||
// @todo Identify arguments and make filterable/settable. | ||
$template .= '<amp-list src="' . esc_attr( $url ) . '" height="400" single-item="true" layout="fixed-height">'; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
What about calling the actual comments walker here too and provide the content as placeholder/fallback content? Maybe that is overkill.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
That's not a bad idea. However, it would increase page weight. But setting some kind of fallback is great idea.
|
||
// Get the action URL. | ||
if ( ! $node->hasAttribute( 'action' ) ) { | ||
$action_url = esc_url_raw( '//' . $_SERVER['HTTP_HOST'] . $_SERVER['REQUEST_URI'] ); // WPCS: ignore. input var okay, sanitization ok. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@westonruter I don't normally like using $_SERVER
if I can avoid it, but this is from your suggestion here: #871 (comment)
I feel this should be a little cleaner, but can't think how. any suggestions?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think this is right what you have here, except that there should a beautiful wp_unslash()
call added to it, since $_SERVER
vars are auto-slashed for back-compat reasons:
esc_url_raw( '//' . wp_unslash( $_SERVER['HTTP_HOST'] ) . wp_unslash( $_SERVER['REQUEST_URI'] ) );
The one for HTTP_HOST
is somewhat overkill.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
agreed on the overkill. but will unslash the request uri.
} | ||
return 'element'; | ||
} | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@westonruter component scripts are have custom-element
in the script tags, however amp-mustache
used for amp-list
does not, instead it has custom-template
. see https://www.ampproject.org/docs/reference/components/amp-mustache
It looks like this is the only component that's different, however I separated it to its own method in case the spec changes, or additionals are added in future.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I don't think get_component_type would be needed if we sanitize the entire body, right?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@westonruter I think we still do, since this is done after the sanitisation and the scripts are placed in. All the scripts are custom-element
but the template is custom-template
.
@westonruter Regarding moving the sanitisation from |
@DavidCramer we'll go ahead and sanitize the entire |
includes/amp-rest-functions.php
Outdated
$GLOBALS['comment'] = $comment; // WPCS: override ok. | ||
$comment->comment_date = get_comment_date(); | ||
$comment->comment_time = get_comment_time(); | ||
$comment->comment = amp_get_comments_recursive( $id, $comment->comment_ID ); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I believe this will have performance problems, as it could result in a lot of DB queries. If you look at wp_list_comments()
I believe you can see it gets a flat list of all comments for the post, and then it passes it into Walker::paged_walk()
which then goes about identifying which comments are children of other comments.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
That is, AMP_Comment_Walker:: paged_walk()
here.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@westonruter Agreed. Can revise it to be more efficient.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@westonruter how about this? b7c5963
@westonruter You can start reviewing this, but there is an issue with the url template strings I need to fix. I'm needing to head off now, but will finish when I'm back. If not by the time you get on, I'll sort it in the morning. |
…dd/862-support-comment-submissions
Shoot. This is a side effect of switching from Similar to what was done in #895 with |
We talked it over and we decided to try the route of |
See #797, #862.