Fix from #38903 prevents options autoload parameter update

[anonymized_16833402]

This is a follow-up to #38903.

3 years ago fix for not * If the new and old values are the same, no need to update. * But this condition does not check if method call intention was to update autoload field of the option.

Currently the issue can be resolved by force update options when update_option method is called with autoload != null and check * If the new and old values are the same, no need to update. * should be skipped.

[desrosj]

Thanks for this ticket, @aboltro. And welcome to Trac!

This looks to be an intentional decision. #26394, and more specifically 26394#comment:13/[31640] shed more light. This behavior is also explicitly documented in the inline documentation.

I am going to recommend this be closed as a wontfix. But also marking for a second opinion.

[herregroen]

I'd disagree with the wontfix.

While it's there in the documentation it's most definitely counter-intuitive and, perhaps more importantly, there's no alternate direct function to change an options' autoload property.

This currently means that in order to change the autoload property of an option developers are forced to resort to direct $wpdb calls which shouldn't be necessary for something so simple.

I think changing update_option so that autoload is updated even if the value is unchanged would be by far the most intuitive and elegant way of doing things. Of course if neither the value nor the autoload property have been changed then nothing should happen.

[joostdevalk]

We just ran into this because @herregroen was fixing some of my code in which I was (wrongly) assuming that update_option would work to change an option's autoload value... So I disagree with the wontfix and would suggest making it so this is doable.

[SergeyBiryukov]

Replying to herregroen:

I think changing update_option so that autoload is updated even if the value is unchanged would be by far the most intuitive and elegant way of doing things. Of course if neither the value nor the autoload property have been changed then nothing should happen.

I tend to agree.

[desrosj]

This one needs more time for a proper patch and amount of testing. If it moves forwards, we should also communicate it clearly and early to developers.

I wouldn't be surprised if there are some strange edge cases where developers include the autoload in their code and it continues working only because that argument had no affect previously.

[hellofromTonya]

With 5.9 Beta 1 tomorrow and no activity on this ticket in this cycle, moving to 6.0 for further discussion and consensus.

[costdev]

Per the discussion in the bug scrub, pinging @SergeyBiryukov to see if this ticket is still on your radar?

[peterwilsoncc]

Bumping this from 6.0 as there hasn't been any activity for this cycle. It's too late to get a breaking change suitably patched, reviewed, etc before the beta.

I've changed the ticket type to enhancement as the change been discussed here is documented and was discussed in #26394.