Zoom out disengages unexpectedly when double-clicking to select all text

[richtabor]

Once you are able to select nested blocks to edit with #65702, you will be able to double-click to select all the text contents of a block—but doing so (a common practice to select all text within a block) will disengage zoom out unexpectedly.

Perhaps enable the listener directly on the section, not all blocks.

372108257-cdb11aa7-2ecc-48f9-bb96-04c1c179b867.mp4

Related #64573.

[getdave]

Just noting that I don't believe this is going to be targeted for 6.7 so I think we can remove from the board 🙇

[getdave]

Maybe fixed by #65782

[getdave]

@colorful-tones @ndiego @kevin940726 I'm removing this form 6.7 board as I don't believe it's targeting 6.7 as it's discussed possible future functionality and features.

[draganescu]

Can we only preserver double click on the workspace area (the gray zone)?

[richtabor]

Can we only preserver double click on the workspace area (the gray zone)?

I think it'll be a nice experience if you double-click and you zoom into the pattern you created. i.e. #65884

[afercia]

you will be able to double-click to select all the text contents of a block

Just to be accurate, the native behavior is that a double-click selects a word. The triple-click selects an entire block of text.

This double-click conflict was originally reported in this comment: #65702 (comment)

Double-click to exit zoom out:
I'm not sure this is an ideal interaction in the first place. It would be totally unexpected, especially when the double click is performed on a block of text. I expect the native click behavior to always work:

• Single clilck: places the cursor in an editable area.
• Double click: selects a word, whether it's in an editable area or not doesn't matter.
• Triple click: selects the entire block of text, whether it's in an editable area or not doesn't matter.

These are native, expected, interactions that shouldn't be hijacked.

[richtabor]

Noting that this is only necessary if we proceed with #65702.

[richtabor]

I'm going to go ahead and close this as not-planned per the feedback on #65702. It doesnt seem like #65702 is necessary to more forward currently.