Block Hooks: Introduce a new `hooked_block_{$block_type}` filter #5835

ockham · 2024-01-03T15:14:04Z

Add a new hooked_block_{$block_type} filter that allows changing a hooked block (in parsed block format), while providing read access to its anchor block (in the same format).

/**
 * Filters the parsed block array for a given hooked block.
 *
 * @since 6.5.0
 *
 * @param array                   $hooked_block      The parsed block array for the given hooked block type.
 * @param string                  $relative_position The relative position of the hooked block.
 * @param array                   $anchor_block      The anchor block.
 * @param WP_Block_Template|array $context           The block template, template part, or pattern that the anchor block belongs to.
 */
$hooked_block = apply_filters( "hooked_block_{$hooked_block_type}", $hooked_block, $relative_position, $anchor_block, $context );

This allows block authors to e.g. set a hooked block's attributes; the filter can peruse information about the anchor block when doing so. As such, this PR provides a solution to both #59572 and #60126.

This seems to strike a good balance and separation of concerns with the existing hooked_block_types filter, which allows addition or removal of a block to the list of hooked blocks for a given hooked blocks -- all of which are identified only by their block types. This new filter, OTOH, only applies to one hooked block at a time, and allows modifying the entire (parsed) hooked block; it also gives (read) access to the parsed anchor block.

This PR also introduces a new insert_hooked_blocks helper function (as originally explored in #5609). This is mostly to avoid code duplication; in particular, we’d otherwise be applying both the hooked_block_types and the newly introduced hooked_block_{$hooked_block_type} filter four times.

Furthermore, the new filter requires some changes to the get_hooked_block_markup() function, which now also has to accept the entire hooked block (as a parsed block array); for more consistency, we also change the argument order.

The following three snippets demonstrate how this new filter can be used (to solve #60126). To try them out, apply the respective patch to the Like Button block code.

Copy `layout.type` attribute from anchor block to hooked block.

diff --git a/like-button.php b/like-button.php
index 65acbc3..d416218 100644
--- a/like-button.php
+++ b/like-button.php
@@ -24,3 +24,19 @@ function create_block_like_button_block_init() {
        register_block_type( __DIR__ . '/build' );
 }
 add_action( 'init', 'create_block_like_button_block_init' );
+
+function set_like_button_block_layout_attribute_based_on_adjacent_block( $hooked_block, $relative_position, $anchor_block ) {
+       // Is the hooked block adjacent to the anchor block?
+       if ( 'before' !== $relative_position && 'after' !== $relative_position ) {
+               return $hooked_block;
+       }
+
+       // Does the anchor block have a layout attribute?
+       if ( isset( $anchor_block['attrs']['layout'] ) ) {
+               // Copy the anchor block's layout attribute to the hooked block.
+               $hooked_block['attrs']['layout'] = $anchor_block['attrs']['layout'];
+       }
+
+       return $hooked_block;
+}
+add_filter( 'hooked_block_ockham/like-button', 'set_like_button_block_layout_attribute_based_on_adjacent_block', 10, 3 );

Replace Like Button block with a pattern (that wraps the block in a Group block).

diff --git a/like-button.php b/like-button.php
index 65acbc3..4728ce1 100644
--- a/like-button.php
+++ b/like-button.php
@@ -22,5 +22,34 @@
  */
 function create_block_like_button_block_init() {
        register_block_type( __DIR__ . '/build' );
+
+       register_block_pattern(
+               'ockham/like-button-wrapper',
+               array(
+                       'title'       => __( 'Like Button', 'like-button' ),
+                       'description' => _x( 'A button to like content.', 'Block pattern description', 'like-button' ),
+                       'content'     => '<!-- wp:group {"layout":{"type":"constrained"}} --><div class="wp-block-group"><!-- wp:ockham/like-button /--></div><!-- /wp:group -->',
+                       'inserter'    => false
+               )
+       );
 }
 add_action( 'init', 'create_block_like_button_block_init' );
+
+function insert_like_button_pattern_after_post_content( $hooked_block, $position, $anchor_block ) {
+       if ( 'before' !== $position && 'after' !== $position ) {
+               return $hooked_block;
+       }
+
+       if ( 'core/post-content' !== $anchor_block['blockName'] ) {
+               return $hooked_block;
+       }
+
+       // We replace the "simple" block with a pattern that contains a Group block wrapper.
+       return array(
+               'blockName' => 'core/pattern',
+               'attrs'     => array(
+                       'slug' => 'ockham/like-button-wrapper',
+               ),
+       );
+}
+add_filter( 'hooked_block_ockham/like-button', 'insert_like_button_pattern_after_post_content', 10, 3 );

Branch: https://github.com/ockham/like-button/tree/try/hooked-block-filter-with-pattern

Note that this approach doesn't allow setting the layout attribute dynamically (and instead hard-wires it to be "type": "constrained").

Manually wrap the Like Button block in a Group block and copy its `layout.type` attribute from the anchor block.

Per b34e2cf (which I just worked on with @c4rl0sbr4v0), it is now possible to pass a block that has inner blocks:

diff --git a/like-button.php b/like-button.php
index 65acbc3..4122d3c 100644
--- a/like-button.php
+++ b/like-button.php
@@ -24,3 +24,34 @@ function create_block_like_button_block_init() {
 	register_block_type( __DIR__ . '/build' );
 }
 add_action( 'init', 'create_block_like_button_block_init' );
+
+function insert_like_button_after_post_content( $hooked_block, $position, $anchor_block ) {
+	if ( 'before' !== $position && 'after' !== $position ) {
+		return $hooked_block;
+	}
+
+	if ( 'core/post-content' !== $anchor_block['blockName'] ) {
+		return $hooked_block;
+	}
+
+	$attrs = isset( $anchor_block['attrs']['layout']['type'] )
+		? array(
+			'layout' => array(
+				'type' => $anchor_block['attrs']['layout']['type']
+			)
+		)
+		: array();
+
+	// Wrap the Like Button block in a Group block.
+	return array(
+		'blockName' => 'core/group',
+		'attrs'     => $attrs,
+		'innerBlocks' => array( $hooked_block ),
+		'innerContent' => array(
+			'<div class="wp-block-group">',
+			null,
+			'</div>'
+		),
+	);
+}
+add_filter( 'hooked_block_ockham/like-button', 'insert_like_button_after_post_content', 10, 3 );

Branch: https://github.com/ockham/like-button/tree/try/hooked-block-filter-with-group-block-wrapper

Not exactly pretty 😬

Before	After

Trac ticket: https://core.trac.wordpress.org/ticket/60126

This Pull Request is for code review only. Please keep all other discussion in the Trac ticket. Do not merge this Pull Request. See GitHub Pull Requests for Code Review in the Core Handbook for more details.

github-actions · 2024-01-03T15:43:09Z

Test using WordPress Playground

The changes in this pull request can previewed and tested using a WordPress Playground instance.

WordPress Playground is an experimental project that creates a full WordPress instance entirely within the browser.

Some things to be aware of

The Plugin and Theme Directories cannot be accessed within Playground.
All changes will be lost when closing a tab with a Playground instance.
All changes will be lost when refreshing the page.
A fresh instance is created each time the link below is clicked.
Every time this pull request is updated, a new ZIP file containing all changes is created. If changes are not reflected in the Playground instance,
it's possible that the most recent build failed, or has not completed. Check the list of workflow runs to be sure.

For more details about these limitations and more, check out the Limitations page in the WordPress Playground documentation.

Test this pull request with WordPress Playground.

ockham · 2024-01-03T16:30:33Z

src/wp-includes/blocks.php

@@ -786,7 +787,62 @@ function get_hooked_block_markup( &$anchor_block, $hooked_block_type ) {
 // However, its presence does not affect the frontend.
 $anchor_block['attrs']['metadata']['ignoredHookedBlocks'][] = $hooked_block_type;

- return get_comment_delimited_block_content( $hooked_block_type, array(), '' );
+ return get_comment_delimited_block_content( $hooked_block_type, $hooked_block['attrs'], '' );


We're currently not passing inner blocks to get_comment_delimited_block_content.
(We're actually not passing any information other than the block type and attributes.)

To do so, we'd basically need to

Suggested change

return get_comment_delimited_block_content( $hooked_block_type, $hooked_block['attrs'], '' );

return serialize_block( $hooked_block );

(Strictly speaking, one might consider using traverse_and_serialize_blocks, but not only do we not have access to the block visitors, we also might want to steer away from infinite recursions 😬)

Done in b34e2cf.

ockham · 2024-01-04T16:06:21Z

Advantages of this approach

Neatly separate from hooked_block_types, reasonable separation of concerns: The former allows modifying which block types should be hooked, the latter is for more granular control -- e.g. to set attributes (and has access to anchor block’s).
Using the hooked_block_{$hooked_block_type} nomenclature would be somewhat familiar from e.g. render_block_{$type}.

Downsides of this approach

The major downside is that while it might be tempting to use this filter to use a pattern instead of a hooked block, it's not a good idea to do so.

If we allow attributes, people might start adding a core/pattern block, and specify the pattern's slug via the slug attribute. However, it is still required to add the core/pattern block as a hooked block in the first place. Since third-party blocks cannot modify a Core block's block.json (and shouldn't resort to doing so via the [block_type_metadata or block_type_metadata_settings filters](https://developer.wordpress.org/block-editor/reference-guides/filters/block-filters/#registration)), this would need to be done via the hooked_block_types filter.

For example: A Like button block uses the hooked_block_types filter to add a core/pattern block after the Post Content block, and then uses the hooked_block filter to set its slug attribute to my/like-button-wrapper.

But what if a Subscribe button block does the exact same, except setting the pattern slug to third-party/subscribe-button-wrapper?

Both blocks might assume at hooked_block filter that the core/pattern block that was added after core/post-content is "theirs"; consequently, they will both try to set the Pattern block's slug attribute. As a result, we'll likely end up with only one hooked Pattern block -- and it's determined by filter order which block pattern prevails. Not ideal 😕

To avoid this from happening, we might even consider warning (or banning) Core blocks from being used as hooked blocks. (See #5810 for a somewhat related PR that seeks to warn against "incompatible" anchor blocks.) Then again, maybe this is not so clear-cut: After all, it makes sense to e.g. use Core's Login/out block as a hooked block that's the last child of the Navigation block.

To offer alternatives for extenders, we might want to allow passing inner blocks to the filter; see.

ockham · 2024-01-04T17:52:45Z

To offer alternatives for extenders, we might want to allow passing inner blocks to the filter; see.

Noting that there might be a bit of an inconsistency with this when used to solve https://core.trac.wordpress.org/ticket/60126, as e.g. the hooked_block filter -- when called for the Like button block -- would return a Group block (which has the Like button block as its inner block). Hopefully not a dealbreaker though 🤔

ockham · 2024-01-09T14:47:59Z

Here's a proof-of-concept (based on the example from #5837) that works with this PR to replace the Like Button block with a pattern that wraps it in a Group block:

diff --git a/like-button.php b/like-button.php
index 65acbc3..4728ce1 100644
--- a/like-button.php
+++ b/like-button.php
@@ -22,5 +22,34 @@
  */
 function create_block_like_button_block_init() {
        register_block_type( __DIR__ . '/build' );
+
+       register_block_pattern(
+               'ockham/like-button-wrapper',
+               array(
+                       'title'       => __( 'Like Button', 'like-button' ),
+                       'description' => _x( 'A button to like content.', 'Block pattern description', 'like-button' ),
+                       'content'     => '<!-- wp:group {"layout":{"type":"constrained"}} --><div class="wp-block-group"><!-- wp:ockham/like-button /--></div><!-- /wp:group -->',
+                       'inserter'    => false
+               )
+       );
 }
 add_action( 'init', 'create_block_like_button_block_init' );
+
+function insert_like_button_pattern_after_post_content( $hooked_block, $position, $anchor_block ) {
+       if ( 'before' !== $position && 'after' !== $position ) {
+               return $hooked_block;
+       }
+
+       if ( 'core/post-content' !== $anchor_block['blockName'] ) {
+               return $hooked_block;
+       }
+
+       // We replace the "simple" block with a pattern that contains a Group block wrapper.
+       return array(
+               'blockName' => 'core/pattern',
+               'attrs'     => array(
+                       'slug' => 'ockham/like-button-wrapper',
+               ),
+       );
+}
+add_filter( 'hooked_block_ockham/like-button', 'insert_like_button_pattern_after_post_content', 10, 3 );

Branch: https://github.com/ockham/like-button/tree/try/hooked-block-filter-with-pattern

This seems reasonably ergonomic. The major downside is still that it doesn't allow setting the layout attribute dynamically (and instead hard-wires it to be "type": "constrained").

ockham · 2024-01-09T15:04:44Z

This seems reasonably ergonomic. The major downside is still that it doesn't allow setting the layout attribute dynamically (and instead hard-wires it to be "type": "constrained").

I wonder if pattern overrides (formerly known as partial sync patterns) would allow to solve this problem. I'll need to research that.

ockham · 2024-01-10T11:33:17Z

Per b34e2cf (which I just worked on with @c4rl0sbr4v0), it is now possible to pass a block that has inner blocks:

diff --git a/like-button.php b/like-button.php
index 65acbc3..2c66824 100644
--- a/like-button.php
+++ b/like-button.php
@@ -24,3 +24,41 @@ function create_block_like_button_block_init() {
        register_block_type( __DIR__ . '/build' );
 }
 add_action( 'init', 'create_block_like_button_block_init' );
+
+function insert_like_button_after_post_content( $hooked_block, $position, $anchor_block ) {
+       if ( 'before' !== $position && 'after' !== $position ) {
+               return $hooked_block;
+       }
+
+       if ( 'core/post-content' !== $anchor_block['blockName'] ) {
+               return $hooked_block;
+       }
+
+       $attrs = isset( $anchor_block['attrs']['layout']['type'] )
+               ? array(
+                       'layout' => array(
+                               'type' => $anchor_block['attrs']['layout']['type']
+                       )
+               )
+               : array();
+
+       // Wrap the Like Button block in a Group block.
+       return array(
+               'blockName' => 'core/group',
+               'attrs'     => $attrs,
+               'innerBlocks' => array(
+                       array(
+                               'blockName'    => 'ockham/like-button',
+                               'attrs'        => array(),
+                               'innerBlocks'  => array(),
+                               'innerContent' => array(),
+                       ),
+               ),
+               'innerContent' => array(
+                       '<div class="wp-block-group">',
+                       null,
+                       '</div>'
+               ),
+       );
+}
+add_filter( 'hooked_block_ockham/like-button', 'insert_like_button_after_post_content', 10, 3 );

Branch: https://github.com/ockham/like-button/tree/try/hooked-block-filter-with-group-block-wrapper

It's not exactly pretty though 😬

ockham · 2024-01-16T13:32:53Z

I've absorbed this comment and this one into the PR description to see at a glance how the new filter can be used with different techniques.

ockham · 2024-01-16T13:33:31Z

This seems reasonably ergonomic. The major downside is still that it doesn't allow setting the layout attribute dynamically (and instead hard-wires it to be "type": "constrained").

I wonder if pattern overrides (formerly known as partial sync patterns) would allow to solve this problem. I'll need to research that.

I've talked to folks who are working on pattern overrides, and it seems like they only work for a block's content, not for arbitrary attributes.

ockham · 2024-01-16T13:38:41Z

@gziolo suggested to allow returning null from the filter, to indicate that the hooked block shouldn't be rendered after all.

I decided against this. The reason is that we already have the hooked_block_types filter to add and remove a block from the list of hooked blocks; and while returning null from the hooked_block filter would allow us to remove it, the opposite -- adding a block via that filter -- is not possible (lack of symmetry).

Furthermore, by not allowing removal of a block via the hooked_block filter, we retain the invariant that that filter will not change the list of hooked blocks, which should make code overall more predictable and resilient. (It avoids e.g. problems if one hooked_block filter returns null, and the next one tries to access and/or modify that block.)

ockham · 2024-01-16T13:55:13Z

Opening for review. Reviewers, please take the time to read the PR description, which I've updated with the rationale behind this filter, plus some code snippets that demonstrate how to use it 🙌

ockham · 2024-01-16T14:11:19Z

FYI @tjcafferkey @nerrad @yansern @TimBroddin 🙂 Feel free to review!

gziolo · 2024-01-16T14:15:46Z

src/wp-includes/blocks.php

+
+ $markup = '';
+ foreach ( $hooked_block_types as $hooked_block_type ) {
+ $hooked_block = array(


It's a very low-level concept as it's the shape of the parsed block. Are we sure that we want to open innerBlocks plus innerContent? What alternatives do we have here to represent the shape in something more abstract that doesn't impact performance?

Yeah, that's a good question. I was originally only thinking to allow modifying attributes, e.g.

$hooked_block_attributes = apply_filters( "hooked_block_attributes_{$hooked_block_type}", $hooked_block_attributes, $hooked_block_type, $relative_position, $anchor_block, $context );

(Note how $hooked_block_attributes is both the first attribute and the return value. I believe we'd need to do it like that (rather than making $hooked_block_type the first argument and return value), since we'd expect filters to change attributes, while the block type is generally going to remain the same.)

There were a number of reasons against this kind of filter signature; I'll try to list them by relevance:

Discussion over at Block Hooks: Set hooked block's layout attribute based on anchor block's #5811 revealed that extenders might still want to wrap their hooked block in a Group block, in order to get the layout attribute to work properly, as I was cautioned by folks more familiar with Layout block-support (in case it's impossible to add it directly to the hooked block). Additionally, we've heard of other use cases where people would like to inject e.g. two hooked blocks inside of a shared Row block parent. Allowing innerBlocks/innerContent to be set provides at least a low-level escape hatch for these use cases.

Only allowing attributes to be set would raise some questions about the filter signature, if we also want to provide access to the anchor block (which we do). Would we provide the entire parsed anchor block (even though it's more inconsistent with having only the hooked block type and attributes)? Or would we also only provide the anchor block's type and attributes (which is more consistent, but lacks information about inner blocks)?

We already have the parsed block format, and WP_Block class instances; I didn't want to add yet another way of specifying a block 😬

Overall, I agree that the parsed block format isn't exactly pretty; I just found it rather hard to come up with a better format or function signature that worked better. Allowing access to innerBlocks and innerContent is kind of a side effect, but not totally unwanted (see 1.).

But if you do have an idea how we could do this differently, please LMK!

What if we pass the result of get_hooked_block_markup call instead? In the majority of cases, that would never change, but if plugins would like to produce a different markup, then they can use the filter to rewrite the HTML to whatever they want:

change the attributes

wrap with a parent block

rewrite it to any HTML they want, which is the only risky but the same issue exists with innerBlocks and innerContent as you can put there anything really

I don't think it's any different from what the API currently offers, but we operate on a much higher level without forcing folk to learn the parsed block structure.

What if we pass the result of get_hooked_block_markup call instead?

Hmm, that would be serialized block markup, i.e. something like .

In the majority of cases, that would never change, but if plugins would like to produce a different markup, then they can use the filter to rewrite the HTML to whatever they want:

change the attributes

wrap with a parent block

rewrite it to any HTML they want, which is the only risky but the same issue exists with innerBlocks and innerContent as you can put there anything really

But even for a simple operation like changing (or adding) an attribute, they would either have to do some string/RegEx-gymnastics (which can be error-prone if they get the markup wrong), or run parse_blocks again on something that was just parsed and re-serialized.

My thinking is that we want to make it easy enough to do a "simple" (and often-requested) change like set/change attributes (with the current state of this PR: $hooked_block['attrs']['layout'] = $anchor_block['attrs']['layout'];), and a bit harder to wrap with a parent or include inner blocks; it seems reasonable to require that an extender "knows what they're doing" if they want to do something more complex like that. (If they'd like to avoid manually nesting arrays to create the parsed block structure, they could still run parse_blocks on a string literal, e.g. parse_blocks( <-- wp:group /--><div class="wp-block-group"></div><-- /wp:group -->' ).)

I don't think it's any different from what the API currently offers, but we operate on a much higher level without forcing folk to learn the parsed block structure.

Personally, I see markup as lower-level than parsed block arrays 😅 but that might be subjective. It's true however that extenders might be familiar with (block) markup, but not necessarily with parsed block arrays.

FWIW, some of our filters in the render pipeline -- e.g. render_block or render_block_data -- also pass parsed block arrays as arguments; this was partly the inspiration here 🙂

FWIW, some of our filters in the render pipeline -- e.g. render_block or render_block_data -- also pass parsed block arrays as arguments; this was partly the inspiration here 🙂

Interesting observation. In effect, let's make it clear then and use $parsed_hooked_block for clarity. It isn't that obvious when looking at render_block that exposes $block.

tjcafferkey · 2024-01-17T09:00:39Z

From my brief time working with and understanding this API, this looks like an acceptable solution to me. I like how your solution is relatively 'simple' and readable yet solves this particular problem. I do have a few comments though:

To avoid this from happening, we might even consider warning (or banning) Core blocks from being used as hooked blocks.

I'd be against this for the reason you've outlined (using the core/loginout block) especially as Gutenberg's block library expands this will become more of a problem. It feels unharmonious to release an API in core whilst at the same time be trying to encourage people to use Gutenberg but not allow one to work with the other.

Also, the API feels quite flexible based on the use cases you've presented in the PR description. If we release something which can be used in a multitude of ways would it limit our ability to safely iterate on and improve it going forward if we need to consider so many use-cases? Just a thought.

ockham · 2024-01-17T10:53:07Z

Thanks a lot for your feedback @tjcafferkey, it's much appreciated!

From my brief time working with and understanding this API, this looks like an acceptable solution to me. I like how your solution is relatively 'simple' and readable yet solves this particular problem. I do have a few comments though:

To avoid this from happening, we might even consider warning (or banning) Core blocks from being used as hooked blocks.

I'd be against this for the reason you've outlined (using the core/loginout block) especially as Gutenberg's block library expands this will become more of a problem. It feels unharmonious to release an API in core whilst at the same time be trying to encourage people to use Gutenberg but not allow one to work with the other.

Yeah, that's a fair point; I agree now that we shouldn't wholesale ban Core blocks 👍

Also, the API feels quite flexible based on the use cases you've presented in the PR description. If we release something which can be used in a multitude of ways would it limit our ability to safely iterate on and improve it going forward if we need to consider so many use-cases? Just a thought.

Yes, the technique we're about to explore in WordPress/gutenberg#57754 might work with similar use cases (i.e. blocks that fetch data from a separate entity in the DB) 👍 Off the top of my head, it might carry over quite well to core/template-part; it might be a bit trickier with core/post-content (where it would end up injecting hooked blocks into the actual post, which would mean we'd actually start injecting into content, and those hooked blocks would appear in the post editor; this would be kind of a major decision to make).

The thing is that by default, firstChild/lastChild insertion only works with container blocks (i.e. blocks that support having inner blocks), which the Navigation, Template Part, and Post Content block aren't, which is why we need to manually add support. I still think there could be some benefit in showing a warning when people attempt to insert into something like that, as I've seen a number of folks try that, and it left them confused when it didn't work. I'd love for them to have a shorter feedback loop to understand why that's happening (and to not give up on using Block Hooks 😅), and it seems easy enough to implement a warning like that.

OTOH I agree that we might continue to add support for some of these blocks in GB, and we don't want to discourage people forever from using them. Maybe we need a filterable list of unsupported blocks that the warning checks against 😅

gziolo · 2024-01-25T13:43:34Z

tests/phpunit/tests/blocks/insertHookedBlocks.php

+ *
+ * @covers ::insert_hooked_blocks
+ */
+ public function test_insert_hooked_blocks_filter_can_wrap_block() {


Excellent addition, these two tests cover new filters. It's exactly what I expected.

ockham · 2024-01-25T14:05:31Z

Committed to Core in https://core.trac.wordpress.org/changeset/57354.

ockham self-assigned this Jan 3, 2024

ockham force-pushed the try/hooked-block-filter branch 2 times, most recently from 01d1e6a to f2f104f Compare January 3, 2024 15:21

ockham commented Jan 3, 2024

View reviewed changes

ockham mentioned this pull request Jan 3, 2024

Block Hooks: Allow passing block definitions to hooked_block_types filter (and thus, hooking patterns) #5837

Closed

2 tasks

This was referenced Jan 8, 2024

Epic: Block Hooks Features for WP 6.5 WordPress/gutenberg#54904

Closed

Block Hooks: Set hooked block's layout attribute based on anchor block's #5811

Closed

ockham force-pushed the try/hooked-block-filter branch 2 times, most recently from 8669a32 to 389cbb0 Compare January 16, 2024 13:21

ockham force-pushed the try/hooked-block-filter branch from 389cbb0 to 49aa634 Compare January 16, 2024 13:39

ockham marked this pull request as ready for review January 16, 2024 13:55

ockham requested a review from gziolo January 16, 2024 13:56

ockham changed the title ~~Block Hooks: Experiment with a new hooked_block filter~~ Block Hooks: Introduce a new hooked_block_{$block_type} filter Jan 16, 2024

gziolo reviewed Jan 16, 2024

View reviewed changes

WordPress deleted a comment from aijaz227 Jan 17, 2024

ockham mentioned this pull request Jan 22, 2024

Update Navigation block to render hooked inner blocks WordPress/gutenberg#57754

Merged

6 tasks

ockham force-pushed the try/hooked-block-filter branch from 9cba041 to aef39d1 Compare January 24, 2024 09:27

ockham added 22 commits January 25, 2024 14:31

Slight rewording of a comment

8b08619

Clarify PHPDoc

0658500

Fix tests

45ff3da

Cover new hooked_block_type arg in tests

520f67e

Add ticket references to tests

df3dc99

Another ticket reference

7b9d6f2

Add assertion to insert_hooked_blocks test

c962fc2

insert_hooked_blocks Test: Turn vars into class consts

cf1297d

Add more test coverage

311c2e6

Add ticket references to 59572

ace54d4

Amend PHPDoc

e3df476

Change variable names to emphasize parsed block array format

275a96a

Remove unnecessary test mocks

e21c8e9

Ooops

c2912f8

Add test coverage for filter

13f1c5d

Add test to cover wrapping block

b9f71ad

Add assertion messages

30c2e97

More assertion messages

5015617

Coding standards

3092b85

More coding standards

47e80e1

Tweak PHPDoc

9cac78c

More PHPDoc tweaking

7fdf956

ockham force-pushed the try/hooked-block-filter branch from d11d318 to 7fdf956 Compare January 25, 2024 13:31

gziolo reviewed Jan 25, 2024

View reviewed changes

ockham closed this Jan 25, 2024

ockham deleted the try/hooked-block-filter branch January 25, 2024 14:05

This was referenced Feb 5, 2024

Automatically inject My Courses and Courses pages into menu on plugin activation Automattic/sensei#7386

Open

Sharing Block: automatically add block to templates in block themes Automattic/jetpack#35542

Merged

ockham mentioned this pull request Feb 19, 2024

Block Hooks: Add new hooked_block filter #6136

Closed

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Block Hooks: Introduce a new `hooked_block_{$block_type}` filter #5835

Block Hooks: Introduce a new `hooked_block_{$block_type}` filter #5835

ockham commented Jan 3, 2024 •

edited

Loading

github-actions bot commented Jan 3, 2024

ockham Jan 3, 2024

ockham Jan 10, 2024

ockham Jan 10, 2024

ockham commented Jan 4, 2024

ockham commented Jan 4, 2024

ockham commented Jan 9, 2024 •

edited

Loading

ockham commented Jan 9, 2024 •

edited

Loading

ockham commented Jan 10, 2024 •

edited

Loading

ockham commented Jan 16, 2024

ockham commented Jan 16, 2024

ockham commented Jan 16, 2024

ockham commented Jan 16, 2024

ockham commented Jan 16, 2024

gziolo Jan 16, 2024

ockham Jan 17, 2024

gziolo Jan 22, 2024

ockham Jan 24, 2024

gziolo Jan 24, 2024 •

edited

Loading

tjcafferkey commented Jan 17, 2024 •

edited

Loading

ockham commented Jan 17, 2024

gziolo Jan 25, 2024

ockham commented Jan 25, 2024

	return get_comment_delimited_block_content( $hooked_block_type, $hooked_block['attrs'], '' );
	return serialize_block( $hooked_block );

Block Hooks: Introduce a new hooked_block_{$block_type} filter #5835

Block Hooks: Introduce a new hooked_block_{$block_type} filter #5835

Conversation

ockham commented Jan 3, 2024 • edited Loading

github-actions bot commented Jan 3, 2024

Test using WordPress Playground

Some things to be aware of

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

ockham commented Jan 4, 2024

Advantages of this approach

Downsides of this approach

ockham commented Jan 4, 2024

ockham commented Jan 9, 2024 • edited Loading

ockham commented Jan 9, 2024 • edited Loading

ockham commented Jan 10, 2024 • edited Loading

ockham commented Jan 16, 2024

ockham commented Jan 16, 2024

ockham commented Jan 16, 2024

ockham commented Jan 16, 2024

ockham commented Jan 16, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

gziolo Jan 24, 2024 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

tjcafferkey commented Jan 17, 2024 • edited Loading

ockham commented Jan 17, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

ockham commented Jan 25, 2024

Block Hooks: Introduce a new `hooked_block_{$block_type}` filter #5835

Block Hooks: Introduce a new `hooked_block_{$block_type}` filter #5835

ockham commented Jan 3, 2024 •

edited

Loading

ockham commented Jan 9, 2024 •

edited

Loading

ockham commented Jan 9, 2024 •

edited

Loading

ockham commented Jan 10, 2024 •

edited

Loading

gziolo Jan 24, 2024 •

edited

Loading

tjcafferkey commented Jan 17, 2024 •

edited

Loading