-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4.7k
Fix unwanted rich previews for internal urls #32613
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
Conversation
|
Size Change: +38 B (0%) Total Size: 1.03 MB
ℹ️ View Unchanged
|
| const { getSettings } = select( blockEditorStore ); | ||
| return { | ||
| baseUrl: getSettings().__experimentalBaseUrl, | ||
| fetchRemoteUrlData: getSettings().__experimentalFetchRemoteUrlData, |
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.
So If I'm not wrong, this feature requires two block-editor settings, It feels a bit too much for just previews tbh. Can't we introduce the bail out behavior inside __experimentalFetchRemoteUrlData somehow?
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.
That was my first thought. Should that need to know about the concept of an internal URL though?
I can look into that later on today.
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.
Maybe the block-editor doesn't need to know about "fetchRemoteURL" entirely? I'm just thinking out loud but maybe the setting should be renderURLPreview (render function)
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.
That is an interesting option.
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.
But does it mean that the users have to implement the loading and error status/style by themselves?
How about instead of accepting an async function (fetchRemoteUrlData), or a render function (renderUrlPreview), we simply accept a React hook (useRemoteUrlData) as the setting value? The hook takes a remote url as the argument, and return richData and isFetching, just like the one we've already created.
useRemoteUrlData( url ) {
// ...
return { richData, isFetching };
}This way, the users don't have to implement the loading style, and they can also skip fetching internal URLs if the url matches a certain pattern. There are no intermediate loading status like we have in async function since that everything can return synchronously. In the future, we can also handle errors or support other progressive enhancements directly in the hook.
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.
so it would be something like:
const { useRemoteURLData } = useSelect( select => select( 'block-editor' ).getSettings(), [] );
const { richData, isLoading } = useRemoteURLData();
this kind of breaks the rules of hooks, because that hook is not necessarily defined and can be updated over time to call different built-in hooks.
I do think it could be nice, but maybe a bit fragile and a bit weird as well (a react hook as a setting).
WDYT
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.
@youknowriad What you have is (I think) how @kevin940726 and I imagined it.
because that hook is not necessarily defined
That's probably the biggest problem for me. It's likely to only be defined in the Editor and not the Block Editor.
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.
How about we change the setting to fetchRichData and remove the current __experimentalFetchRemoteUrlData.
This will accept a url much as __experimentalFetchRemoteUrlData does now. But within the function, we can decide which path to follow based on whether the url is internal or not.
Initially the implementation would be something like:
function __experimentalFetchRichData(url) {
if (url.includes(baseUrl)) {
return Promise.resolve({})'
}
// Now do the same as `__experimentalFetchRemoteUrlData` does currently
// to handle external URL
}Then in the future we could bolt on the ability to fetch rich data about an internal URL very easily.
This allows us to keep the current hook implementation the same whilst also making sure that block-editor has no idea about WP specific stuff.
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.
See #32658
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.
What I was thinking is to split <LinkPreview> into 2 different components, one is the original LinkPreview, and the other one is the LinkRichPreview component. We can skip rendering <LinkRichPreview> if there's no useRemoteURLData (or any other name) so that we don't break the rules of hooks. And I would imagine the setting can't be updated once it's rendered so that it won't break the other rule of hooks either.
But I agree that it's a bit weird though. Maybe render function (or just a component) is a better way to go, but would need to update LinkPreview to make it work.
|
This may have been answered somewhere else, but why don't we want to show previews for internal links? It seems like there is still value. |
Great question. We do but we should do it with another mechanic which grabs the necessary data. After all we should have all the data for rich prevuews by querying WP. This was going to be one for a follow up. |
|
Closing in favour of #32658 |
Description
Due to the introduction of loading placeholders towards the end of #31464, internal URLs will now briefly showing a "loading" state. This is not desireable.
This PR fixes this by testing against a base URL which is used to test if the URL being previewed is an internal URL. If it is then we bail out.
This
baseURLhas been added to the@wordpress/editorblock editor settings as we cannot apply the test directly in<LInkControl>as this must remain WordPress agnostic. Note however, that the concept of a internal URL applies to all types of application.Closes #32657
Questions
baseURLto the settings on the server side to ensure it's populated "early" and doesn't require a fetch?How has this been tested?
www.wordpress.org).Screenshots
Before
After
Types of changes
Checklist:
*.native.jsfiles for terms that need renaming or removal).