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

Feature to add anchor attribute to core/paragraph block #2015

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: canary
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

jan-clockworkwp
Copy link

Tasks

  • I have signed a Contributor License Agreement (CLA) with WP Engine.
  • If a code change, I have written testing instructions that the whole team & outside contributors can understand.
  • I have written and included a comprehensive changeset to properly document the changes I've made.
    • Note: Last referenced version of @faustjs/blocks package on canary branch by the changeset package was 4.0.1 but in the code was version 5.0.0, so that is the reason why my changeset entry is marked as major change.

Description

As mentioned in the following feature request, an anchor attribute was added in the @faustjs/blocks package and the CoreParagraph block.

Related Issue(s):

[feat] Add anchor attribute to core/paragraph block #1954

Testing

  1. In the WordPress application add native Gutenberg feature HTML Anchor to any paragraph block.
  2. Check front end Faust application and see if the paragraph is properly rendered with id tag of HTML anchor value.
  3. Additionally, run npm run test from the @faustjs/blocks package root to run all blocks code tests

Note: This feature is needed only for the templates where the content is being rendered with the WordPressBlocksViewer component.

Screenshots

Documentation Changes

Dependant PRs

@jan-clockworkwp jan-clockworkwp requested a review from a team as a code owner December 30, 2024 16:56

Currently, we do not support the creation of preview deployments based on changes coming from forked repositories.
Learn more about preview environments in our documentation.

Copy link

changeset-bot bot commented Dec 30, 2024

🦋 Changeset detected

Latest commit: 528f11e

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

This PR includes changesets to release 1 package
Name Type
@faustwp/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

theodesp commented Jan 2, 2025

thanks @jan-clockworkwp

@@ -0,0 +1,5 @@
---
'@faustwp/blocks': major
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This should be a patch version instead, We are not breaking anything.

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@theodesp btw there is a note in the Tasks section related to it, and I was not sure how to correct semver and code mismatch properly.

Note: Last referenced version of @faustjs/blocks package on canary branch by the changeset package was 4.0.1 but in the code was version 5.0.0, so that is the reason why my changeset entry is marked as major change.

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
{
"name": "@faustwp/blocks",
"version": "5.0.0",
"version": "5.1.0",
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This should be a patch version instead. We are not breaking anything.

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Hi @theodesp, I was just trying to follow semver that, if I understand correctly, patch bumps are meant for backwards-compatible bug fixes, and minor bumps are for backwards-compatible new feature releases. I naturally considered this a new feature as it was adding functionality, but it could have been considered a fix as well. Do you want me to change it to version 5.0.1 instead?

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.

2 participants