Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Remove: experimental status from blockEditor.transformStyles #16126

Merged

Conversation

jorgefilipecosta
Copy link
Member

Description

Follow up on #15572.

Removes experimental status from blockEditor.transformStyles.

How has this been tested?

I verified the HTML block still works as before.
I executed wp.blockEditor.transformStyles( [ { css: 'h1, b { color: red; }' } ], '.wp' );in the browser console and I verified the output was: [".wp h1,↵.wp b {↵color: red;↵}"].

@jorgefilipecosta jorgefilipecosta added the [Type] Code Quality Issues or PRs that relate to code quality label Jun 12, 2019
@jorgefilipecosta jorgefilipecosta force-pushed the remove/experimental-status-from-transform-styles branch from 61bc34f to 0498555 Compare June 12, 2019 22:09
@@ -387,6 +387,10 @@ _Type_

- `Object`

<a name="transformStyles" href="#transformStyles">#</a> **transformStyles**

Internal dependencies
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This isn't accurate documentation. I think we should use the "Internal dependencies" text only for import, whereas we're using it as export currently.

I'd suggest:

  • Remove the "Internal dependencies" DocBlock
  • Add sufficient documentation for transformStyles

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggestion applied 👍

@jorgefilipecosta jorgefilipecosta force-pushed the remove/experimental-status-from-transform-styles branch from 0498555 to 2d423e9 Compare June 27, 2019 15:42
Copy link
Member

@aduth aduth left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I don't really know much about the specific behavior of this function, but it seems reasonably well-suited for this module and as we'd discussed previously, was scheduled for stabilization after a couple releases (as has elapsed).

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
[Type] Code Quality Issues or PRs that relate to code quality
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants