Skip to content

Conversation

@adamsilverstein
Copy link
Member

This PR address a few points of input that remained incomplete from #10472 before it was merged in order to make it into Beta 4.

Trac ticket:


This Pull Request is for code review only. Please keep all other discussion in the Trac ticket. Do not merge this Pull Request. See GitHub Pull Requests for Code Review in the Core Handbook for more details.

@adamsilverstein adamsilverstein marked this pull request as ready for review November 7, 2025 15:14
@github-actions
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Nov 7, 2025

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 adamsilverstein, justlevine, mamaduka, peterwilsoncc.

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

@github-actions
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Nov 7, 2025

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.

@Mamaduka Mamaduka self-requested a review November 7, 2025 16:12
@adamsilverstein
Copy link
Member Author

@Mamaduka did I miss any other feedback we can address in 6.9? The messaging improvements for resolve/reopen will need to wait for 7.0 since they will involve string changes. I did open this which could also be 7.0: #10489

@Mamaduka
Copy link
Member

Mamaduka commented Nov 7, 2025

You mentioned unit test failures and a safeguard for them - #10472 (comment). Are those no longer relative?

Otherwise, we can ship this and work on the remaining tasks for 7.0.

@adamsilverstein
Copy link
Member Author

You mentioned unit test failures and a safeguard for them - #10472 (comment). Are those no longer relative?

I don't see the failures, so I may be wrong about why I switched the location. let me do some further testing locally.

@peterwilsoncc
Copy link
Contributor

Night brain realised I missed something on the earlier PR.

As multisite installs often don't run the upgrade routine, get_option( 'wp_notes_notify' ) will need to include the default in each location it's used, ie get_option( 'wp_notes_notify', '1' )

Also, while doing follow up, the schema array included an empty line break at the end of the array that it would be nice to remove.

// 6.9.0
'wp_notes_notify' => 1,
);

@github-actions
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Nov 7, 2025

Trac Ticket Missing

This pull request is missing a link to a Trac ticket. For a contribution to be considered, there must be a corresponding ticket in Trac.

To attach a pull request to a Trac ticket, please include the ticket's full URL in your pull request description. More information about contributing to WordPress on GitHub can be found in the Core Handbook.

@adamsilverstein
Copy link
Member Author

Night brain realised I missed something on the earlier PR.

As multisite installs often don't run the upgrade routine, get_option( 'wp_notes_notify' ) will need to include the default in each location it's used, ie get_option( 'wp_notes_notify', '1' )

Good catch, thanks! added in 7cfb3c2

Also, while doing follow up, the schema array included an empty line break at the end of the array that it would be nice to remove.

removed in 4e9f2ef

@adamsilverstein
Copy link
Member Author

Pending any other feedback I plan to commit this before RC1.

<br />
<label for="wp_notes_notify">
<input name="wp_notes_notify" type="checkbox" id="wp_notes_notify" value="1" <?php checked( '1', get_option( 'wp_notes_notify' ) ); ?> />
<input name="wp_notes_notify" type="checkbox" id="wp_notes_notify" value="1" <?php checked( '1', get_option( 'wp_notes_notify', 1 ) ); ?> />
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Not a blocker: checked compare '1' string value with int 1. Do we needs to change this?

Comment on lines +2468 to +2472
function wp_new_comment_via_rest_notify_postauthor( $comment ) {
if ( 'note' === $comment->comment_type ) {
wp_new_comment_notify_postauthor( (int) $comment->comment_ID );
}
}
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

For sage guard, return early if it is not comment object.

if ( ! $comment instanceof WP_Comment ) {
	return;
}

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.

5 participants