Fix dependencies so scripts are concatenated

[nacin]

The jQuery UI dependency tree is too complex for our dependencies package, which cause them to not concatenate into load-scripts.

We've fixed the side effects by wrapping things in document.ready and such.

We should try to fix this for 3.1 so we're not losing the load-scripts benefit.

Simple solution would be to simplify the dependencies. We can improve our code in a future release.

I had a quick dig into this and we are not going to solve this easily.

I think this goes on the plate for looking at in 3.2

Could you describe the problem in more detail?

I'm only seeing two load-script.php calls: one for jquery,utils and another for all the rest, including the jQuery UI stuff.

Is the goal to have a single load-script.php call?

Go to Edit a Post.

You get in the Header:

<script type='text/javascript' src='http://trunk.domain/wp-includes/js/l10n.js?ver=20101110'></script>
<script type='text/javascript' src='http://trunk.domain/wp-admin/load-scripts.php?c=1&amp;load=jquery,utils,editor&amp;ver=151e6df801b09d30f43e1a8f2114dea7'></script>

In the Footer:

<script type='text/javascript' src='http://trunk.domain/wp-admin/load-scripts.php?c=1&amp;load=admin-bar,hoverIntent,common,jquery-color,schedule,wp-ajax-response,autosave,wp-lists,jquery-query,jquery-serialize-object,list-table,jquery-ui-core,jquery-ui-widget,jquery-ui-mouse,jquery-ui-resizable,admin-comments,suggest,jquery-ui-sortable,postbox,post,word-count,thickbox,media-upload&amp;ver=7f23cd0951f2123c9380a176139079da'></script>

<script type='text/javascript' src='http://trunk.domain/wp-includes/js/jquery/ui.draggable.js?ver=1.8.7'></script>
<script type='text/javascript' src='http://trunk.domain/wp-includes/js/jquery/ui.button.js?ver=1.8.7'></script>

<script type='text/javascript' src='http://trunk.domain/wp-includes/js/jquery/ui.position.js?ver=1.8.7'></script>
<script type='text/javascript' src='http://trunk.domain/wp-includes/js/jquery/ui.dialog.js?ver=1.8.7'></script>

All the jquery ui ones should be loaded by the footer load-scripts call.

Ok, thanks.

If this is not a regression, I'm for punting as well.

Replying to scribu:

Ok, thanks.

If this is not a regression, I'm for punting as well.

I think it is only a regression in so much as the script loader hasn't changed but the dependency tree we now have causes it issues.

It is. Caused by the more complex dependencies in jQUI.

This is not a bug in the dependencies :-)

<script type='text/javascript' src='http://trunk.domain/wp-includes/js/jquery/ui.draggable.js?ver=1.8.7'></script>
<script type='text/javascript' src='http://trunk.domain/wp-includes/js/jquery/ui.button.js?ver=1.8.7'></script>
<script type='text/javascript' src='http://trunk.domain/wp-includes/js/jquery/ui.position.js?ver=1.8.7'></script>
<script type='text/javascript' src='http://trunk.domain/wp-includes/js/jquery/ui.dialog.js?ver=1.8.7'></script>
<script type='text/javascript' src='http://trunk.domain/wp-includes/js/tinymce/plugins/wpdialogs/js/popup.js?ver=20101119'></script>

• wpdialogs depends on jquery-ui-dialog
• jquery-ui-dialog depends on jquery-ui-resizable, jquery-ui-draggable, jquery-ui-button, 'jquery-ui-position

The script it not printed until late on until this call wp_print_scripts( array( 'wpdialogs-popup' ) );

That call is in wp_tiny_mce FYI

Related: #9346

So, as westi found, it's not dependencies. #blamenacin

Two options for 3.1:

• Leave this as is for 3.1. It doesn't look like anything is breaking. (But we should confirm.)

• Enqueue earlier on the pages we need. If we don't need it (plugin actually not used, etc), then we don't need it and it's a little extra being included in the load-scripts call. Better than the five extra HTTP requests I think.

I like # 2, personally. Will look further.

Replying to nacin:

So, as westi found, it's not dependencies. #blamenacin

Two options for 3.1:

• Leave this as is for 3.1. It doesn't look like anything is breaking. (But we should confirm.)

• Enqueue earlier on the pages we need. If we don't need it (plugin actually not used, etc), then we don't need it and it's a little extra being included in the load-scripts call. Better than the five extra HTTP requests I think.

I like # 2, personally. Will look further.

It's not a serious bug and can wait for 3.2 IMHO

Ideally we should come up with a way to enqueue tinymce via the script loaded in a separate group which we can then print out in a similar way to how it works now.

It could then depend on these extra scripts and when it was enqueued we wouldn't need to print stuff out as well.

Replying to westi:

Ideally we should come up with a way to enqueue tinymce via the script loaded in a separate group which we can then print out in a similar way to how it works now.

It could then depend on these extra scripts and when it was enqueued we wouldn't need to print stuff out as well.

I agree with that.

I'm fine with a punt here (actually, I'd probably close as invalid and open a new ticket for TinyMCE) but I'm trying to remember what problems in core we had here.

Closing as invalid. Need a new ticket for 3.2. koopersmith has mentioned he's willing to work on splitting wp_tiny_mce.