Implement image block placeholder #566
Conversation
I think this could still be useful for laying out a page, and adding the images afterwards. |
blocks/library/image/style.scss
Outdated
| .blocks-image__placeholder-label { | ||
| display: flex; | ||
| align-items: center; | ||
| justify-content: center; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks like spacing was added by mistake
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks like spacing was added by mistake
Thanks! Fixed in the rebased e4b84ea.
|
Working great! |
|
Yes, the alignment controls are totally fine on the placeholder. Imagine cases where an editor for a publication lays out the structure of a post, but leaves it up to other people to fill the media. Also could be useful for page templates. |
| @@ -72,6 +75,23 @@ registerBlock( 'core/image', { | |||
| edit( { attributes, setAttributes, focus, setFocus } ) { | |||
| const { url, alt, caption } = attributes; | |||
|
|
|||
| if ( ! url ) { | |||
| return ( | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Would it make sense to move this into an empty function?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Would it make sense to move this into an
emptyfunction?
What does "empty" mean?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It means when it acts as a placeholder, when no content is yet set. This is going to be a prevalent case for templates down the road.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It means when it acts as a placeholder, when no content is yet set. This is going to be a prevalent case for templates down the road.
Right, but in the sense of treating blocks as rendering always from its state, an imperative "renderNew" doesn't make sense. A block could implement conditions under which it could be considered empty (here, ! url), but it's unclear how we'd want to generalize this. Maybe related to #609, an attribute can be flagged as required and, when missing, use a separate render function like your empty example.
I don't know that introducing this break from edit / save duality really provide a whole lot of value though for what could be equally represented by:
edit: ( { attributes } ) =>
attributes.url
? <ImageEdit />
: <EmptyImageEdit />There was a problem hiding this comment.
That last example looks alright, but I'm mostly concerned with people doing all sort of different things for something that should have a consistent UX. Empty could be just the comment (leaving blocks to implement more fine grained UI handling when specific attributes are missing), which could be a nice way to define a template:
<!-- wp:core/text --><!-- /wp:core/text -->
<!-- wp:core/image --><!-- /wp:core/image -->
<!-- wp:core/button --><!-- /wp:core/button -->
In any case I think forcing block authors to have a separate function for returning the empty render, regardless of whether it is called from edit manually, could be helpful.
aduth
force-pushed
the
update/454-image-placeholder
branch
from
412999d to
e4b84ea
Compare
Closes #454
This pull request seeks to implement the placeholder image block. It is currently not functional; there are no behaviors to drop or insert an image from the media library.
Open questions:
controlsdepending on its current attributes. We could do this by allowing the block implementer to optionally specifycontrolsas a function. Or, depending on how far we want to take the Slot & Fill idea (Try Slot & Fill pattern for rendering Editable formatting controls #507), assume that a block must render its own controls via<Fill>, meaning they'd have full control over the rendering from theeditfunction.Testing instructions:
Verify that after inserting a new image block, a new block is added with a placeholder appearance.