Allow filter directive processors to be used with the Widget template filter

[theCapypara]

Description (*)

This allows the use of filter directives with the Magento\Widget\Model\Template\Filter filter (which is used by CMS content). This makes extending the filter directives actually useful.

By applying the changes in this Pull Request, the following DI configuration also applies to this filter as well:

<config xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:noNamespaceSchemaLocation="urn:magento:framework:ObjectManager/etc/config.xsd">
    <type name="Magento\Framework\Filter\Template">
        <arguments>
            <argument name="directiveProcessors" xsi:type="array">
                <item name="my-custom-directive" sortOrder="1000" xsi:type="object"><!--...--></item>
            </argument>
        </arguments>
    </type>
</config>

Manual testing scenarios (*)

1. Create a custom filter directive via DI
2. See this filter directive now being applied for CMS pages and CMS blocks

Contribution checklist (*)

• Pull request has a meaningful description of its purpose
• All commits are accompanied by meaningful commit messages
• All new or changed code is covered with unit/integration tests (if applicable)
• All automated tests passed successfully (all builds are green)

Resolved issues:

1. resolves [Issue] Allow filter directive processors to be used with the Widget template filter #29764: Allow filter directive processors to be used with the Widget template filter

[m2-assistant]

Hi @Parakoopa. Thank you for your contribution
Here is some useful tips how you can test your changes using Magento test environment.
Add the comment under your pull request to deploy test or vanilla Magento instance:

• @magento give me test instance - deploy test instance based on PR changes
• @magento give me 2.4-develop instance - deploy vanilla Magento instance

❗ Automated tests can be triggered manually with an appropriate comment:

• @magento run all tests - run or re-run all required tests against the PR changes
• @magento run <test-build(s)> - run or re-run specific test build(s)
  For example: @magento run Unit Tests

<test-build(s)> is a comma-separated list of build names. Allowed build names are:

1. Database Compare
2. Functional Tests CE
3. Functional Tests EE,
4. Functional Tests B2B
5. Integration Tests
6. Magento Health Index
7. Sample Data Tests CE
8. Sample Data Tests EE
9. Sample Data Tests B2B
10. Static Tests
11. Unit Tests
12. WebAPI Tests

You can find more information about the builds here

ℹ️ Please run only needed test builds instead of all when developing. Please run all test builds before sending your PR for review.

For more details, please, review the Magento Contributor Guide documentation.

[theCapypara]

It seems contributors can't add labels anymore. This is a partner contribution for "Tudock GmbH", could someone add the labels for that?

[theCapypara]

@magento run all tests

[theCapypara]

@magento-engcom-team The failing builds are not because of changes I made, it's just something old in the same file, what can I do about this?

[lenaorobei]

@magento create issue

[lenaorobei]

Hi @Parakoopa. Thanks for this improvement.

Static builds work in a way that the whole content of changed file is being checked.

For this specific failure The use of function html_entity_decode() is discouraged: I believe it makes sense to add // phpcs:ignore Magento2.Functions.DiscouragedFunction annotation, since it is not related to your change.

Please consider also adding integration test to cover this behaviour.

[engcom-Charlie]

Hi @Parakoopa could you please take a look at #28723 (review)?
Otherwise, we can't proceed with your PR.
Thank you.

[engcom-Charlie]

@magento run all tests

[theCapypara]

@engcom-Charlie I don't really understand why that test is failing now.

[lenaorobei]

Static tests pass now, but this change still requires additional test coverage. I believe, integration test would suit best.

[engcom-Charlie]

Hi @Parakoopa, can you please cover your changes by integration test?
Thank you.

[gabrieldagama]

The risk was set tolow due to: the suggested changes shouldn't impact other areas.

[theCapypara]

I will implement the integration tests as soon as I find the time for it.

[engcom-Charlie]

Hi @Parakoopa, do you have any updates about test coverage?
Thank you.

[theCapypara]

I still have this on my TODO list.

[theCapypara]

@magento run all tests

[theCapypara]

@engcom-Charlie
Is there any update on this? I did the requested changes.

[theCapypara]

Any update on this? I haven't heard anything in over a year.

[theCapypara]

@magento-engcom-team Any updates?

[engcom-Charlie]

Hi @theCapypara,

Thank you for your contribution!

Once the PR will get reviewed from community members, it will move further.

Thank you!

[hostep]

I have the impression that this change is no longer needed since Magento 2.4.3 as a similar change was introduced in scope of #31772 apparently.

So this PR can probably be closed if somebody could confirm this? Thanks! 🙂

[theCapypara]

To be honest it is a bit frustrating to contribute to Magento / Adobe Commerce if after 2 years this is the answer and there is still no word from the maintainers. I get that this is just a simple fix and I'm happy to see it fixed somewhere else, but it's still pretty discouraging that this keeps happening. I would love to some communication and quicker processing of Pull Requests in the future or I'll just re-consider whether or not it's worth to even contribute in the first place.