-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3.1k
Command Palette: Use WP_HTML_Processor and WP_HTML_Decoder to generate menu label and menu URL #10480
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
Open
t-hamano
wants to merge
8
commits into
WordPress:trunk
Choose a base branch
from
t-hamano:64177-palette-enhancement
base: trunk
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Command Palette: Use WP_HTML_Processor and WP_HTML_Decoder to generate menu label and menu URL #10480
Changes from 5 commits
Commits
Show all changes
8 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
8b09509
Command Palette: Use WP_HTML_Processor and WP_HTML_Decoder to generat…
t-hamano 7a03b40
Extract common logic
t-hamano 1f16c56
Fix PHPCS error
t-hamano e5b6e12
Add docblock
t-hamano 38a0f43
Merge branch 'trunk' into 64177-palette-enhancement
t-hamano dfe44d1
Merge branch 'trunk' into 64177-palette-enhancement
t-hamano b0439d4
WIP
t-hamano c3acbc7
Use WP_HTML_Tag_Processor to extract root-level test nodes
t-hamano File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
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.
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.
hey nice job @t-hamano getting this built. I hope it wasn’t too obscure to figure out.
this looks like it should be solid, but I can share a couple of points of feedback.
Finding root-level text nodes
when creating a fragment (with the default
<body>context) we will always have an open HTML element and BODY element, meaning that root-level text will always have a depth of 3 (and likewise, the breadcrumb depth will be three).this means we can eliminate the nested loop and directly check if the depth is 3. we don’t have to capture the root depth. that open HTML and BODY are guarantees with how it works.
On the other hand, we can also test this via the breadcrumbs. I found an issue that we should probably change/fix on
matches_breadcrumbs(), because that won’t work here, but for the time being this would.Efficiency and reliability
The use of the HTML Processor is particularly convenient because it provides depth automatically. On the other hand, if you find that it’s too slow or fails too frequently (because it receives the fraction of input documents it can’t parse) then we can still adjust the lever on the reliability/practicality spectrum. The Tag Processor will not fail with the same parsing issues the PCRE matches did, even though that can lead to some kinds of parsing failures (with, for example, mismatched tags).
Still, the Tag Processor won’t fail a parse each token and is considerably faster than the fully-fledged HTML Processor. If we were to choose this approach, we’d want to manually track depth, which again, could be wrong because HTML is so wonderfully complex (vs. the HTML Processor which will not be wrong here).
The choice is up to you. The only thing I’d watch out for is that occasionally we get things like “nested”
Atags, and those can cause the HTML Processor to abort out of caution.