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: Change the empty() check to empty string check in shortcode_parse_atts() #7633

Open
wants to merge 4 commits into
base: trunk
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

Debarghya-Banerjee
Copy link

@Debarghya-Banerjee Debarghya-Banerjee commented Oct 23, 2024

Trac Ticket: Core-59509

Overview

  • This pull request addresses an issue in the shortcode_parse_atts() function, where attributes in the form of numeric keys (e.g., 0=value) were not being parsed correctly. The existing implementation used empty() to check for attribute names, which incorrectly evaluated numeric strings as empty, leading to the omission of such attributes.

Changes Made

  • Updated the parsing logic in shortcode_parse_atts() to use isset() && empty string check instead of empty() for checking the presence of attribute names. This change ensures that numeric keys are properly recognized and included in the parsed attributes
    array.

Rationale

  • The ability to parse numeric attribute names is important for shortcodes that may use them as valid parameters. This modification improves the robustness of the shortcode parsing functionality, making it more consistent with expected usage scenarios.

Updated Code Snippet:

if ( isset( $m[1] ) && '' !== $m[1] ) {
    $atts[ strtolower( $m[1] ) ] = stripcslashes( $m[2] );
}

Testing:

  • Verified that existing shortcode functionality remains unaffected.

Impact

  • This change is backward-compatible and only affects the internal logic of attribute parsing. It enhances the flexibility of shortcode attributes without breaking existing implementations.

Documentation

  • The documentation for shortcode_parse_atts() has been reviewed and remains accurate.

Copy link

github-actions bot commented Oct 23, 2024

The following accounts have interacted with this PR and/or linked issues. I will continue to update these lists as activity occurs. You can also manually ask me to refresh this list by adding the props-bot label.

Core Committers: Use this line as a base for the props when committing in SVN:

Props debarghyabanerjee, apermo.

To understand the WordPress project's expectations around crediting contributors, please review the Contributor Attribution page in the Core Handbook.

Copy link

Test using WordPress Playground

The changes in this pull request can previewed and tested using a WordPress Playground instance.

WordPress Playground is an experimental project that creates a full WordPress instance entirely within the browser.

Some things to be aware of

  • The Plugin and Theme Directories cannot be accessed within Playground.
  • All changes will be lost when closing a tab with a Playground instance.
  • All changes will be lost when refreshing the page.
  • A fresh instance is created each time the link below is clicked.
  • Every time this pull request is updated, a new ZIP file containing all changes is created. If changes are not reflected in the Playground instance,
    it's possible that the most recent build failed, or has not completed. Check the list of workflow runs to be sure.

For more details about these limitations and more, check out the Limitations page in the WordPress Playground documentation.

Test this pull request with WordPress Playground.

@Debarghya-Banerjee Debarghya-Banerjee changed the title Change the empty check to empty string check Fix: Change the empty() check to empty string check in shortcode_parse_atts() Oct 24, 2024
@Debarghya-Banerjee
Copy link
Author

Hi @SergeyBiryukov , can you please take a look into this PR. Thanks.

@apermo
Copy link

apermo commented Oct 25, 2024

@Debarghya-Banerjee @SergeyBiryukov

Looking good to me. At first I thought it might be broken and would require a filter to allow null or other optional changes. But logic-wise this looks solid to me.

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