Opened 22 months ago
Last modified 12 months ago
#6611 new defect (bug)
Template part block hooks missing from Code Reference
Reported by: | johnbillion | Owned by: | |
---|---|---|---|
Milestone: | Priority: | normal | |
Component: | Developer Hub | Keywords: | |
Cc: |
Description
The following hooks are missing from the Code Reference:
render_block_core_template_part_post
render_block_core_template_part_file
render_block_core_template_part_none
Change History (4)
#2
@
22 months ago
I'm not sure if anything has changed since then but the @since
tags on those actions appear to represent the WordPress version they were introduced in (5.9.0), rather than the Gutenberg version.
#3
@
22 months ago
Personal opinion, wp-includes/blocks
should be included in the reference, in full, as it's not an "external project" as such, even if it's primarily developed within Gutenberg.
Of the files in that directory, https://github.com/WordPress/wordpress-develop/blob/a9afc8e36bf669ea1b5a5cb79602aae4e0ec613a/src/wp-includes/blocks/latest-comments.php#L23 is the only instance of an @since
where the version appears to be incorrect (3.3) which should be corrected to be a WordPress version (if it's not WP3.3)
#4
@
12 months ago
I'm in agreement with @dd32, as I've just finished an embarrassingly long dive into trying to figure out what was going on with the docs.
The block editor is a core part of WordPress now, and once features, functions, hooks, etc get merged into core their documentation should be a part of it.
We already include everything in wp-includes/blocks.php
so it seems to make sense to me to include wp-includes/blocks/*
as well.
After [9184], per #4624,
wp-includes/blocks/
is explicitly excluded from the Code Reference as that code was considered an external package. The hooks listed above are defined inwp-includes/blocks/template-parts.php
.Exclusion is via https://github.com/WordPress/wporg-developer/blob/trunk/source/wp-content/themes/wporg-developer/inc/parser.php#L24
Does Core consider this file to be an exclusion to that rule?