Group block: Simplify variations' isActive fields #63100
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
ockham
added
[Type] Code Quality
|
Size Change: -53 B (0%) Total Size: 1.94 MB
ℹ️ View Unchanged
|
|
The following accounts have interacted with this PR and/or linked issues. I will continue to update these lists as activity occurs. You can also manually ask me to refresh this list by adding the If you're merging code through a pull request on GitHub, copy and paste the following into the bottom of the merge commit message. To understand the WordPress project's expectations around crediting contributors, please review the Contributor Attribution page in the Core Handbook. |
Member
|
@ockham, do you mind rebasing this on top of the latest trunk? |
ockham
force-pushed
the
update/group-variations-is-active-field
branch
from
086d822 to
ecedae0
Compare
Contributor
Author
Done! |
Contributor
|
I'm seeing a minor issue but I'm not 100% sure if I'm using the feature correctly. This is my variation registration code in my custom block: // `index.js` of my custom block
import { registerBlockVariation } from "@wordpress/blocks";
import { __ } from "@wordpress/i18n";
import domReady from "@wordpress/dom-ready";
domReady(() => {
registerBlockVariation("core/group", {
name: "wpcomsp/marquee-content",
title: "Marquee Content",
icon: "editor-table",
description: __("A marquee content block."),
scope: ["block", "inserter"],
attributes: {
isMarquee: true,
layout: { type: "flex", flexWrap: "nowrap" },
className: "wpcomsp-marquee-content",
allowedBlocks: [
"core/paragraph",
"core/heading",
"core/image",
"core/buttons",
],
},
isActive: ["layout.type", "isMarquee"],
});
});I can see the Curiously, when I increase the specificity by adding an additional item in the isActive: ["layout.type", "layout.flexWrap", "isMarquee"],But, trying to insert a Row block ends up inserting a Marquee Content instead. |
Contributor
Author
Oh, that's very weird, and somewhat concerning -- the block variation inserted being different from the one selected in the inserter seems like there's a very weird disconnect happening. I'm curious, what happens if you try using your code with GB |
Member
|
I did more testing and noticed that normal Group variation ( |
Contributor
Author
Ah, good spot! I opted against setting I'm thinking to implement the latter behavior (potentially in a separate PR). |
Contributor
Author
|
This comment was marked as off-topic.
This comment was marked as off-topic.
Sorry, something went wrong.
Contributor
michalczaplinski
left a comment
michalczaplinski
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sorry, I have to take back my approval as this feedback was meant for your other PR! the good news is that I'm approving your other PR 😅 .
2 tasks
ockham
force-pushed
the
update/group-variations-is-active-field
branch
from
ecedae0 to
90682ac
Compare
Mamaduka
reviewed
Sep 15, 2025
| blockAttributes.layout?.type === 'flex' && | ||
| ( ! blockAttributes.layout?.orientation || | ||
| blockAttributes.layout?.orientation === 'horizontal' ), | ||
| isActive: [ 'layout.type' ], |
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Won't this conflict with the Grid variation, since now that we have "same" active condition?
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It shouldn't, since the active variation detection logic will compare the value of this attribute (as specified by the variation's attributes definition). For the Row variation, layout.type is flex (see two lines above); for the Grid variation, it's grid.
(For the Column variation, where layout.type is flex, i.e. the same as for the Row, we supply an additional criterion -- layout.orientation, which needs to be vertical -- to increase specificity and thus avoid collisions.)
|
Flaky tests detected in 90682ac. 🔍 Workflow run URL: https://github.com/WordPress/gutenberg/actions/runs/17733383507
|
Contributor
Author
|
@Mamaduka Think this is good to land? |
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?
Simplify active variation detection for the Group block.
Why?
To simplify code and showcase recent enhancements to active block variation detection.
It might also help with fixing #41303.
How?
By leveraging changes to active variation detection from #62088 and #62031, which allow dot notation for nested attributes (e.g.
layout.type), and picks the variation with the highest specificity if multiple variations match the givenisActivecriteria.Testing Instructions
Insert multiple Group blocks, choosing a different variation each time. Save your post and reload the editor. Verify that the block inspector reflects the correct variation for each block.