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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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
Prevent RESET_BLOCKS from affecting reusable blocks #11746
Prevent RESET_BLOCKS from affecting reusable blocks #11746
Changes from all commits
0c92c67
7d3d116
0593446
a4ed064
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It makes me think, rather than duplicate the logic of the reducer, is there a way we could inject the existing reusable blocks into the action to make sure they're persisted after the reset?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
One advantage of this: I'd rather see
RESET_BLOCKS
remain in the reducer. In fact, I want it to be the only thing there (removingSETUP_EDITOR_STATE
instead). See #11641.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yeah OK. I've pushed up 7d3d116 which changes things so that we instead augment
RESET_BLOCKS
with a list of client IDs that are referenced by reusable blocks and thus shouldn't be touched.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Are we trying to pretend that we don't know there's only the two properties
byClientId
andorder
that we're already returning anyways? 😄