Blocks: directly check blockType vs hasBlockSupport #58335
Draft
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: +190 B (0%) Total Size: 1.7 MB
ℹ️ View Unchanged
|
|
Flaky tests detected in 759de06. 🔍 Workflow run URL: https://github.com/WordPress/gutenberg/actions/runs/7673321498
|
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
What?
WIP
For a large post, there's about 35 000 calls, which underneath uses split('.') to parse the block supports key. In many cases, we already have access to the block type, or it's easy to get. Direct access from the block type is cleaner and more performant. E.g. instead of
hasBlockSupport( blockTypeOrName, 'filter.duotone' ), you can simply checkblockType.supports?.filter?.duotone.Why?
How?
Testing Instructions
Testing Instructions for Keyboard
Screenshots or screencast