Interactivity API: Iteration for WP 6.6

Part of Block API #41236.

We completed everything for the first public release of the Interactivity API in WordPress 6.5. Now, during the next iteration―which is going to be shorter―, we aim to focus on improving the current API without releasing new features. This includes enhancing the developer experience (especially during debugging), better test coverage and code quality, as well as fixing any reported bugs.

Note that the list is expected to be modified. I've also added optional tasks we can work on if we find the time.

28-05 Update: All tasks have been redistributed for 6.6 release summary.

Punted to future releases

Won't do

Ready for 6.6

Enhancements

Bug fixes

Code Quality

@DAreRodz

@DAreRodz @gziolo What's the best path to consider additional workstreams for the Interactivity API for 6.6?

Context is that @westonruter and myself have been exploring ideas to facilitate better INP performance centrally via the Interactivity API. For instance, we could automatically yield certain actions and callbacks to the main thread to reduce contention between multiple event listeners. We're close to formalizing our proposal in an issue, and it would be great to eventually include this effort here, if the team is on board.

One of the changes we're proposing may require a BC break in the API which we could handle with a deprecation strategy, but it would also benefit from being implemented sooner than later, now that the API is still very new and not yet as widely adopted outside of core.

@felixarntz

Hey @felixarntz, thanks for raising this up! 😊

I'm unsure what would be the "best path" (maybe @gziolo could help), but as this tracking issue is meant to be flexible, I would be happy to include your work. Let's wait for the proposal to see if we can have it ready for WP 6.6 and how the mentioned breaking changes could impact the current API.

@felixarntz

That sounds excellent, @felixarntz. I'm looking forward to seeing the proposal.

@DAreRodz, the Iteration issues mostly bring focus and increase the visibility of what to expect in WordPress 6.6, but it doesn't mean we can't change it. In practice, we should always be open to changing the plans based on the feedback and discoveries from the community experts 😍

The ability to use existing WordPress Scripts from Script Modules is one of the most impactful things we can work on for the Interactivity API. Anything built with the Interactivity API must be a script module, so although it's not strictly Interactivity API, resolving this ticket for script and module interoperability seems very important: https://core.trac.wordpress.org/ticket/60647

@sirreal

Second @sirreal calls for WordPress scripts. We use wp-api-fetch and wp-url with interactive blocks, a lot. Making that easier from a dev tooling perspective to automatically enqueue those scripts would be greatly appreciated.

Is there any chance to get interactivity api outside of blocks? For example in custom php templates?

@ermincelikovic

@ermincelikovic While I believe it's not documented, it should already be possible. The main caveat is that by default custom PHP templates wouldn't be processed server-side, so you have to make sure the attributes that are dynamic via the Interactivity API are initialized with their correct value.

As a proof of concept, I have been working on WordPress/wordpress-develop#5795 where I am using the Interactivity API for all dynamic functionality of the Twenty Twenty-One theme. Maybe that's helpful.

default custom PHP templates wouldn't be processed server-side, so you have to make sure the attributes that are dynamic via the Interactivity API are initialized with their correct value

You can process them using wp_interactivity_process_directives 🙂

Based on discussion in #60979 (comment) I've opened a PR to add build configuration for a standalone package:

Interactivity API: Add build configuration for a standalone package #61681

I've started a PR to migrate @wordpress/interactivity-router to TS:

Interactivity API : Refactor interactivity-router to TS #61730

Hi all 👋

Reminder: The release candidate for Gutenberg Version 18.5 is scheduled for next Friday (May 31st). So anything that is supposed to make it into WordPress 6.6 must be merged by then.

Please raise any important issues that need additional attention :)

Hi 👋

I updated the description of the main tracking issue with the list of PRs that won't be included in this release, the PRs that still needs review or commit and the PRs ready for 6.6.

I've added WordPress/wordpress-develop#6453 as an enhancement for 6.6 (let Interactivity API be used in WP Admin).

I've added a unit test to the bug fix for the fatal error if a state or context uses a stdClass. Ready to review: 👀
WordPress/wordpress-develop#6672

Added a merged a bug fix for data-wp-each-child priority.

Interactivity API: Increase directive wp-each-child priority. #62293

Closing as finished.

The work for WordPress 6.7 will be tracked in the following tracking issue:

Interactivity API iteration for WordPress 6.7 #63232

The new version introduced a BIG error... Now instead of returning an object, get_context() returns a string

@otakupahp

The new version introduced a BIG error... Now instead of returning an object, get_context() returns a string

@otakupahp Will you please open a new issue with details about the problem?

Will you please open a new issue with details about the problem?

I would love, but I spend that time tracking the error, and I'm terrible creating those issues. But I found the reason for it.

Before 6.6 I had an array with other arrays:

array(
    array( 'id' => 1, 'item' => 'item 1 name' ),
    array( 'id' => 1, 'item' => 'item 2 name' ),
    array( 'id' => 1, 'item' => 'item 3 name' ),
);

That create this JSON:

[
    {"id":1, "item":"item 1 name"},
    {"id":2, "item":"item 2 name"},
    {"id":3, "item":"item 3 name"},
]

The Interactive API created a context object that contains the array without problems.

Now, it just renders a string instead of an array object

To fix the error, I have to modify my array into this:

array(
    'data' => array(
        array( 'id' => 1, 'item' => 'item 1 name' ),
        array( 'id' => 1, 'item' => 'item 2 name' ),
        array( 'id' => 1, 'item' => 'item 3 name' ),
    )
);

Which created this JSON:

{
    "data": [
        {"id":1, "item":"item 1 name"},
        {"id":2, "item":"item 2 name"},
        {"id":3, "item":"item 3 name"},
    ]
}

This is indeed parsed as an object.

SO, I must patch my code to make it work...

Maybe this was introduced on #6672

@otakupahp

I have created an issue to investigate this bug:

Interactivity API: Inability to use plain arrays in context #63651

@otakupahp, could you please comment on that issue to provide a detailed list of the steps we need to take to reproduce the problem? Thank you.

Navigation Menu

Repository navigation

Interactivity API: Iteration for WP 6.6 #60219

Punted to future releases

Won't do

Ready for 6.6

Enhancements

Bug fixes

Code Quality

18 remaining items

Metadata

Assignees

Labels

Type

Projects

Milestone

Relationships

Development

Interactivity API: Iteration for WP 6.6 #60219

Description

Punted to future releases

Won't do

Ready for 6.6

Enhancements

Bug fixes

Code Quality

Activity

felixarntz commented on Apr 2, 2024

DAreRodz commented on Apr 3, 2024

gziolo commented on Apr 3, 2024

sirreal commented on Apr 4, 2024

sethrubenstein commented on Apr 4, 2024

ermincelikovic commented on Apr 5, 2024

felixarntz commented on Apr 5, 2024

luisherranz commented on Apr 7, 2024

18 remaining items

michalczaplinski commented on May 16, 2024

michalczaplinski commented on May 16, 2024

fabiankaegy commented on May 21, 2024

cbravobernal commented on May 28, 2024

sirreal commented on May 29, 2024

cbravobernal commented on May 29, 2024

cbravobernal commented on Jun 7, 2024

luisherranz commented on Jul 8, 2024

otakupahp commented on Jul 17, 2024

sirreal commented on Jul 17, 2024

otakupahp commented on Jul 17, 2024

luisherranz commented on Jul 17, 2024

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

Labels

Type

Projects

Milestone

Relationships

Development

Issue actions