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

Fix revert coreimage block width type #340

Open
wants to merge 6 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

theodesp
Copy link
Member

@theodesp theodesp commented Feb 6, 2025

Reverts #130

@theodesp theodesp requested a review from a team as a code owner February 6, 2025 10:47
Copy link

changeset-bot bot commented Feb 6, 2025

🦋 Changeset detected

Latest commit: 18d9e8b

The changes in this PR will be included in the next version bump.

This PR includes changesets to release 1 package
Name Type
@wpengine/wp-graphql-content-blocks Major

Not sure what this means? Click here to learn what changesets are.

Click here if you're a maintainer who wants to add another changeset to this PR

@theodesp
Copy link
Member Author

theodesp commented Feb 6, 2025

Latest Image block.json width is of type "string" so I don' think this is a breaking change

https://github.com/WordPress/WordPress/blob/master/wp-includes/blocks/image/block.json#L74
https://github.com/WordPress/wordpress-develop/blob/trunk/src/wp-includes/blocks/image/block.json#L74

colinmurphy
colinmurphy previously approved these changes Feb 6, 2025
colinmurphy
colinmurphy previously approved these changes Feb 7, 2025
@colinmurphy
Copy link
Contributor

@theodesp LTGM

@justlevine
Copy link
Contributor

Latest Image block.json width is of type "string" so I don' think this is a breaking change

https://github.com/WordPress/WordPress/blob/master/wp-includes/blocks/image/block.json#L74 https://github.com/WordPress/wordpress-develop/blob/trunk/src/wp-includes/blocks/image/block.json#L74

Yes it is...

image

@theodesp
Copy link
Member Author

Latest Image block.json width is of type "string" so I don' think this is a breaking change
https://github.com/WordPress/WordPress/blob/master/wp-includes/blocks/image/block.json#L74 https://github.com/WordPress/wordpress-develop/blob/trunk/src/wp-includes/blocks/image/block.json#L74

Yes it is...

image

Yes. I've seen this. The thing is, I don't see where this width: "number" type is coming from? All the references of the image width in wordpress latest or develop are "width: "string"

Also after trying to query the Schema with this PR with WP v6.7.1, I can see the type is string:

Screenshot 2025-02-10 at 12 00 04

Is it the schema.graphql out of date maybe?

@justlevine
Copy link
Contributor

Latest Image block.json width is of type "string" so I don' think this is a breaking change
https://github.com/WordPress/WordPress/blob/master/wp-includes/blocks/image/block.json#L74 https://github.com/WordPress/wordpress-develop/blob/trunk/src/wp-includes/blocks/image/block.json#L74

Yes it is...
image

Yes. I've seen this. The thing is, I don't see where this width: "number" type is coming from? All the references of the image width in wordpress latest or develop are "width: "string"

Also after trying to query the Schema with this PR with WP v6.7.1, I can see the type is string:

Screenshot 2025-02-10 at 12 00 04 Is it the `schema.graphql` out of date maybe?

My understanding of your CI, is that you're defining the WordPress version in the .env.dist instead of in the CI itself, so makes sense it would get out dated, but that's not the issue here.

The issue is that the minimum WP requirement isn't 6.7, and as such removing this is a breaking change for users on earlier versions of WordPress.

(Personally, I'd much rather break this just once as part of #136 / interfaces that stabilize the schema independently underlying changes to WordPress )

@theodesp
Copy link
Member Author

@justlevine Thanks I will just increase the major version with a note.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants