Block lazy loading #51778
Draft
Block lazy loading #51778
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
Size Change: +540 B (0%) Total Size: 2.05 MB
ℹ️ View Unchanged
|
|
Flaky tests detected in efac9eb. 🔍 Workflow run URL: https://github.com/WordPress/gutenberg/actions/runs/6036439195
|
tyxla
reviewed
Jun 23, 2023
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is exciting to see! I'm dropping some comments as I'm passing by, but I'm looking forward to the work to make the block parser asynchronous.
It looks like this PR can serve as a primary PR and then we can land pieces from it separately. One obvious piece for example can be the part where we extract the editor entrypoints to separate modules.
Anyway, I wonder if we should think about a centralized importmap mechanism that uses the native browser import maps. It could be something that can be separately landed, but centralization will be needed, since browsers currently only support a single import map. Or do you intend to use the webpack runtime instead?
lib/init.php
Outdated
|
|
||
| function disable_scripts() { | ||
| // disable loading and enqueuing block editor scripts and styles | ||
| // can't be `__return_false` because this function is already registered for this filter |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Perhaps if we add it with a different priority (the third add_filter() argument)?
lib/init.php
Outdated
Comment on lines
73
to
71
| if ( ! isset( $metadata['editorScript'] ) ) { | ||
| if ( isset( $metadata['file'] ) && strstr( $metadata['file'], 'gutenberg') ) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Nit: maybe these should be combined in a single if or we could invert the top one to avoid deep nesting.
|
|
||
| function emit_importmap() { | ||
| wp_register_script( 'wp-importmap', ''); | ||
| wp_add_inline_script( 'wp-importmap', 'wp.importmap = ' . wp_json_encode( get_block_importmap() ) . ';' ); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
wp_localize_script() could be an easier way to pass raw data from PHP to JS.
| } | ||
|
|
||
| function emit_importmap() { | ||
| wp_register_script( 'wp-importmap', ''); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Since we're calling wp_enqueue_script() down there, we don't need to register it at all. This line can be removed. We might only need to call the wp_add_inline_script() or wp_localize_script() after the wp_enqueue_script.
|
|
||
| function emit_importmap() { | ||
| wp_register_script( 'wp-importmap', ''); | ||
| wp_add_inline_script( 'wp-importmap', 'wp.importmap = ' . wp_json_encode( get_block_importmap() ) . ';' ); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Are we aiming to use webpack and not native ES modules and import maps? I'd love to hear what your thoughts are about this choice.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Same here, would love to understand why we're reinventing import maps?
Comment on lines
575
to
582
| const src = mod.src; | ||
| const newNode = document.createElement( 'script' ); | ||
| newNode.src = src; | ||
| newNode.onload = () => | ||
| console.log( 'loaded', name, mod.handle, src ); | ||
| newNode.onerror = () => | ||
| console.log( 'failed to load', name, mod.handle, src ); | ||
| document.body.appendChild( newNode ); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This could just be an ES import if we use the native import maps. It could be easier to make it async, too, since we can chain additional actions import( 'mod' ).then(() => { ... } );
lib/init.php
Outdated
| if ( ! empty( $metadata['name'] ) && str_starts_with( $metadata['name'], 'core/' ) ) { | ||
| $block_name = str_replace( 'core/', '', $metadata['name'] ); | ||
| if ( ! isset( $metadata['editorScript'] ) ) { | ||
| if ( isset( $metadata['file'] ) && strstr( $metadata['file'], 'gutenberg') ) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This may need some additional logic for when it's ported to core.
jsnajdr
force-pushed
the
feat/async-block-loading
branch
2 times, most recently
from
333c37a
to
80cc489
Compare
|
Going to report on the current status. The first step is to register all blocks, on the server, without enqueing any actual block scripts and styles. We just need to declare them in a
This server-side registration and dynamic loading now mostly works, especially for Core blocks. One thing that doesn't work well is dynamically loading styles. To register the block styles at all, I have to enable the The next step is to make the block parser (the This dynamic parsing also already mostly works. I can open post editor for an existing block, and all the blocks that it uses will be loaded, their editor UI rendered, and they can be edited. Another important place where HTML content is being parsed into blocks are block patterns. It's the The next place that is currently broken and needs work is the block inserter. Currently it displays only the blocks that have been already loaded, triggered by the post content, and other places that trigger block loading. Therefore, it displays a rather random subset of registered blocks, not all of them. Here, it would be nice if the block inserter could do all its work with just the server-sent bootstrap info about the block. What does it need? The block name, description, icon, and information needed to determine which blocks can be inserted at a particular place. I.e., the We'll see what other issues with async block loading will come up. |
jsnajdr
force-pushed
the
feat/async-block-loading
branch
2 times, most recently
from
0f3fa80
to
283e25a
Compare
jsnajdr
force-pushed
the
feat/async-block-loading
branch
from
283e25a
to
ec38016
Compare
|
We are now in a state where performance tests can run successfully, all the editor features that the tests use are working. The improvements in various initial load metrics are very significant and nice: |
jsnajdr
force-pushed
the
feat/async-block-loading
branch
2 times, most recently
from
4053716
to
1dde417
Compare
|
This pull request has changed or added PHP files. Please confirm whether these changes need to be synced to WordPress Core, and therefore featured in the next release of WordPress. If so, it is recommended to create a new Trac ticket and submit a pull request to the WordPress Core Github repository soon after this pull request is merged. If you're unsure, you can always ask for help in the #core-editor channel in WordPress Slack. Thank you! ❤️ View changed files❔ lib/blocks.php ❔ lib/init.php |
3 tasks
3 tasks
jsnajdr
force-pushed
the
feat/async-block-loading
branch
from
f010718
to
bd140ba
Compare
youknowriad
reviewed
Aug 10, 2023
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It's great to see this prototype. Help move things forward.
It's clear from the changes, that a lot of breaking changes are happening, most actions need to be "awaited" for now if we make parsing blocks... async. How do you see us handling this? Is there a potential path forward here without breaking changes? (To be honest, it seems very hard to me)
Is there an alternative where lazy loading blocks could happen at the block level instead. For instance, the block registration itself might be small enough (not 0) but the dependencies are the biggest part, it might be possible to extract the heavy dependencies to external lazy loaded scripts (think image editor, resizable stuff, syntax highlighting script, ...) without breaking changes.
The last thing is about the "import map" and "loader", what are your thoughts on trying import maps and I also feel that we should probably extract this from this PR and potentially try it with a new very small script like I did in #34172 before actually making the higher level abstraction (block lazy loading)
|
|
||
| function emit_importmap() { | ||
| wp_register_script( 'wp-importmap', ''); | ||
| wp_add_inline_script( 'wp-importmap', 'wp.importmap = ' . wp_json_encode( get_block_importmap() ) . ';' ); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Same here, would love to understand why we're reinventing import maps?
jsnajdr
force-pushed
the
feat/async-block-loading
branch
from
03e3c94
to
75362cc
Compare
jsnajdr
force-pushed
the
feat/async-block-loading
branch
from
15c9a1a
to
0345d15
Compare
jsnajdr
force-pushed
the
feat/async-block-loading
branch
from
0345d15
to
efac9eb
Compare
gziolo
added
the
[Feature] Block API
gziolo
reviewed
Sep 6, 2023
| if ( ! empty( $block_type->editor_script_handles ) ) { | ||
| foreach ( $block_type->editor_script_handles as $editor_script_handle ) { | ||
| if ( str_starts_with( $editor_script_handle, 'wp-block-' ) ) { | ||
| wp_deregister_script( $editor_script_handle ); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
To connect the efforts. I was looking in WordPress/wordpress-develop#5118 at ways to allow referencing the same file path by multiple blocks by storing a handle name in the asset file to use it as a way to prevent registering the same file under different names. As of today, WP core would register the same script file under different handles because the name is generated based on the block name.
jsnajdr
force-pushed
the
feat/async-block-loading
branch
from
efac9eb
to
e8680ee
Compare
|
One question about backward compatibility. To make the transition to async APIs, ideally, we would need to support:
That is the most extreme case, right? Something like this: // some plugin function...
echo "
<script>
const { registerBlockType } = wp.blocks;
registerBlockType( 'my-plugin/block', {
// ...
} );
</script>
"; |
jsnajdr
force-pushed
the
feat/async-block-loading
branch
from
e8680ee
to
e1d88a5
Compare
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This is the current state of my async block loading experiment. What I try to achieve is:
On initial load of the post editor, never load any block edit scripts, or anything else that calls
registerBlockType. The only information about blocks is the bootstrap info inwp.blocks.unstable__bootstrapServerSideBlockDefinitions. From the bootstrap info, we know that a block exists, but everything else should be dynamically loaded.Then we setup webpack to build each Core block editor script individually, as
editor.min.jsandeditor.min.asset.php. Until now they were all bundled in oneblock-librarypackage script.Instead of enqueuing the editor script, I output an "importmap". It could be a real native ES importmap, or just a plain JSON object assigned to a global
wp.importmapvariable. I'm doing the JS variable now. To use a native importmap andimport()statements, we'll have to overcome one limitation: for each block, we can register multiple editor scripts and multiple stylesheets. The importmap can specify all of them in an array, and thenwp.importBlock( 'core/paragraph' )can load all the registered files at once. JS, CSS, and maybe translations in the future. On the other hand, native importmap can only map 1:1, one module name to one JS script.Now, the unfinished part is to dynamically load the block scripts in the browser. The idea is to change
getBlockTypeto throw an error when a block definition is not found. And replace the failing calls with a new function,async loadBlockType, which will dynamically load the missing block. The first place to do this will be the block parser.