-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4.2k
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
Site title: Add option to toggle home link #31540
Conversation
Size Change: +68 B (0%) Total Size: 1.07 MB
ℹ️ View Unchanged
|
Is there a good way to remove the |
1fda801
to
6d1271b
Compare
There were a lot of conflicts due to recent tweaks in some blocks (see #32817). As a result, I had to rebase the PR and in the process of resolving conflicts I had to refactor a lot of things.
Yes, by returning |
Attempt to resolve merge conflict by reverting the change to the fixture.
The PR refactor is working well for me, the block works as I expect in the editors and front. There was a merge conflict because the fixtures has moved to test/integration/fixtures/blocks/, so I updated the fixture again to solve it. |
As far as I can tell this block is fully dynamic - save content is empty and everything is handled when rendering on the front-end. In that case, you don't have to worry about deprecations. |
Thank you, this is confusing because the only documentation I can find for deprecation seems to be for custom blocks. Not for best practices for the plugin/core? |
The most detailed document is here: We should clarify that you need deprecations only when the save implementation outputs something. |
I'm not sure this is 100% true 🤔 . For example if we renamed an attribute, wouldn't we need a deprecation and handle the |
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.
Thanks for your work here @carolinan! Besides some small comments, this looks good!
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.
This LGTM - thanks!
IMO current copy
is not confusing and is something that can be even addressed in a follow up. Besides that, everything else seems good.
Hi @carolinan,
Thanks for the ping! I think in this case, Another slightly more active alternative could be, |
Tests are passing again so I will merge this. |
Description
Partial for #30918
Previously, the site title was always a link. This adds an option to remove the default link.
How has this been tested?
Tested manually by adding a site title block:
Text and link color options
With and without link
With and without opening in a new tab.
Screenshots
Types of changes
Enhancement
Checklist:
*.native.js
files for terms that need renaming or removal).