ContentOnly mode: Exclude template parts for now #73332
Merged
+8
−22
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
andrewserong
requested review from
aaronrobertshaw,
getdave,
jeryj,
ramonjd,
scruffian,
talldan and
tellthemachines
andrewserong
added
[Type] Experimental
|
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. |
|
Size Change: -30 B (0%) Total Size: 2.49 MB
ℹ️ View Unchanged
|
Contributor
Author
|
Since I imagine we'll likely revisit enabling the behaviour for template parts in the future, rather than removing the tests for template parts altogether, I've updated the tests to reflect the behaviour in this PR in d3a1d0d. |
tellthemachines
approved these changes
Nov 17, 2025
Contributor
tellthemachines
left a comment
tellthemachines
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Code LGTM and works as expected!
It would be good to have consistent behaviour across template parts and patterns at some point though, because they are confusingly similar concepts. But this is all a WIP so let's keep iterating 😄
Contributor
Author
|
Thanks for reviewing!
Indeed, and happy to help revert this revert when we're ready to do so 😄 |
andrewserong
deleted the
update/exclude-template-parts-from-content-only-mode-for-now
branch
Contributor
|
Thank you! |
Contributor
Is there an issue to discuss the nuance, and what needs to be done to make it feel good to use? I don't really understand why Patterns are being considered different to Template Parts. Users might also insert patterns to build a template and those are also content locked. If the friction is a problem then it makes me question the whole idea of applying I don't agree with the idea of this PR, especially given the feature is an experiment still. I don't mind the idea of 1 step backwards, 2 steps forwards, but there needs to be an issue to track the 2 steps forwards. 😄 |
Contributor
|
Valid pushback. From my perspective, the long term goal is to unify our "editing in isolation" interfaces. By editing in isolation I mean: you click an edit button in a toolbar or an inspector, and you get a focused view of just that element, whether it's a complex block like Navigation or a pattern, or a synced block or template part. We have such a mode, it's engaged by default for template parts when you click edit. With the new contentOnly experiment, there's another, where you click "Edit section" in the inspector, and a situational spotlight-mode is applied to let you delve into just that block in a subtle way. I see both of those being unified. Whether it's only the spotlight-like mechanism, or only the navigate-to-a-separate-page mode, I have less strong feelings about. Speaking mostly about the site/page/template editor now, I understand the latter will continue to exist for editing patterns when navigated to directly. What will happen in the meantime, I think we can plot out a course together: if technically this is a headache as you suggest (1 step backward, 2 steps forward), then perhaps a different approach is needed. From my perspective, the main headache to solve is this one:
That there are at present two different ways to edit a template part, and both of them softly conflict insofar as they unlock in different ways, and not always all the way through. One related question there: but is there a way where if I’ve unlocked an ancestor, then every child is unlocked too? If we could make that happen, the "Edit" button on the template part could potentially be set to just engage the spotligt-esque mode. |
Contributor
The 'Edit section' button should already do that (it looks like it does in your screen cap) so it is or was a little superior, and in my testing with nested patterns it works. My feeling is that we should make the 'Edit' toolbar button engage that mode instead (only when the experiment is active) to reduce the confusingness. If we want to retain access to the isolated/focus mode, maybe we can surface it as a 'Go to template part' option in the block settings dropdown. If we want to make the isolation/focus mode unlock all the blocks, it's a little different, as the entire editor needs to be put into that mode. We'd need to develop that as a new feature. It's not a bad feature to have. |
This was referenced Nov 17, 2025
talldan
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 20, 2025
…emplate parts (#73419) * Revert "ContentOnly mode: Exclude template parts for now (#73332)" This reverts commit 6a93dc6. * Update button to edit/exit * Fix button label with experiment inactive * Fix displaying alternate block patterns when editing a section * Update toolbar button copy to Edit section * Ensure Edit button text is just Edit when experiment disabled ---- Co-authored-by: talldan <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: andrewserong <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: jasmussen <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: getdave <[email protected]>
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?
Part of #71517
Exclude template parts from content only mode for now (i.e. don't consider template parts a section block)
Why?
This PR is based on some feedback from @jasmussen:
The suggestion was to exclude template parts from this mode for now, as there's more nuance to resolve in getting it to feel good to use, and right now it adds friction to editing headers and footers.
How?
Partially revert #71627 — just those bits that relate to considering a template part a section block.
Testing Instructions
Screenshots or screencast
Before
After