Block Bindings: Create utils to update or remove bindings #64102
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains 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
This file contains 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
This file contains 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
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
| @@ -0,0 +1,98 @@ | ||
| /** | ||
| * WordPress dependencies | ||
| */ | ||
| import { useDispatch, useSelect } from '@wordpress/data'; | ||
|
|
||
| /** | ||
| * Internal dependencies | ||
| */ | ||
| import { store as blockEditorStore } from '../store'; | ||
| import { useBlockEditContext } from '../components/block-edit'; | ||
|
|
||
| export function useBlockBindingsUtils() { | ||
| const { clientId } = useBlockEditContext(); | ||
| const { updateBlockAttributes } = useDispatch( blockEditorStore ); | ||
| const { getBlockAttributes } = useSelect( blockEditorStore ); | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. It would be more optimal to have: const { getBlockAttributes } = useRegistry().select( blockEditorStore );See more in this guide. |
||
|
|
||
| /** | ||
| * Updates the value of the bindings connected to block attributes. | ||
| * It removes the binding when the new value is `undefined`. | ||
| * | ||
| * @param {Object} bindings Bindings including the attributes to update and the new object. | ||
| * @param {string} bindings.source The source name to connect to. | ||
| * @param {Object} [bindings.args] Object containing the arguments needed by the source. | ||
| * | ||
| * @example | ||
| * ```js | ||
| * import { useBlockBindingsUtils } from '@wordpress/block-editor' | ||
| * | ||
| * const { updateBlockBindings } = useBlockBindingsUtils(); | ||
| * updateBlockBindings( { | ||
| * url: { | ||
| * source: 'core/post-meta', | ||
| * args: { | ||
| * key: 'url_custom_field', | ||
| * }, | ||
| * }, | ||
| * alt: { | ||
| * source: 'core/post-meta', | ||
| * args: { | ||
| * key: 'text_custom_field', | ||
| * }, | ||
| * } | ||
| * } ); | ||
| * ``` | ||
| */ | ||
| const updateBlockBindings = ( bindings ) => { | ||
| const { metadata } = getBlockAttributes( clientId ); | ||
| const newBindings = { ...metadata?.bindings }; | ||
| Object.entries( bindings ).forEach( ( [ attribute, binding ] ) => { | ||
| if ( ! binding && newBindings[ attribute ] ) { | ||
| delete newBindings[ attribute ]; | ||
| return; | ||
| } | ||
| newBindings[ attribute ] = binding; | ||
| } ); | ||
|
|
||
| const newMetadata = { | ||
| ...metadata, | ||
| bindings: newBindings, | ||
| }; | ||
|
|
||
| if ( Object.keys( newMetadata.bindings ).length === 0 ) { | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. Here and in other places it would increase the readability if the helper function was present: function isObjectEmpty( object ) {
return ! object || Object.keys( object ).length === 0;
}
// later
if ( isObjectEmpty( newMetadata.bindings ) ) {This could also be further refactored so it doesn't require the step to remove the undefined key: const newMetadata = {
...metadata,
...( ! isObjectEmpty( newBindings ) && {
bindings: newBindings,
} ),
}; |
||
| delete newMetadata.bindings; | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| updateBlockAttributes( clientId, { | ||
| metadata: | ||
| Object.keys( newMetadata ).length === 0 | ||
| ? undefined | ||
| : newMetadata, | ||
| } ); | ||
| }; | ||
|
|
||
| /** | ||
| * Removes the bindings property of the `metadata` attribute. | ||
| * | ||
| * @example | ||
| * ```js | ||
| * import { useBlockBindingsUtils } from '@wordpress/block-editor' | ||
| * | ||
| * const { removeAllBlockBindings } = useBlockBindingsUtils(); | ||
| * removeAllBlockBindings(); | ||
| * ``` | ||
| */ | ||
| const removeAllBlockBindings = () => { | ||
| const { metadata } = getBlockAttributes( clientId ); | ||
| const newMetadata = { ...metadata }; | ||
| delete newMetadata.bindings; | ||
|
Comment on lines
+86
to
+88
There was a problem hiding this comment. That could be a single line: const { metadata: { bindings, ...metadata } } = getBlockAttributes( clientId ); |
||
| updateBlockAttributes( clientId, { | ||
| metadata: | ||
| Object.keys( newMetadata ).length === 0 | ||
| ? undefined | ||
| : newMetadata, | ||
| } ); | ||
| }; | ||
|
|
||
| return { updateBlockBindings, removeAllBlockBindings }; | ||
| } | ||
Oops, something went wrong.
Oops, something went wrong.
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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Why were we using the
labelhere before? It seems like that was brittle. It appears that this change is unrelated to the adding of the utils in this PR, and is just an additional code cleanup, and it looks good. I'm just curious.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It seems that we were just using the values of the
registeredSourcesobject instead of their keys.I'm not sure if if sources label were always the same as the registeredSources key, but this approach seems safer, as the label should allow whitespaces or uppercases.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I believe the name wasn't exposed before. But this seemed safer to me as well.