Opened 3 years ago
Last modified 3 years ago
#53952 new defect (bug)
Reusable blocks - removing from a page treated as an edit of the re-usable block
Reported by: | jonnie45 | Owned by: | |
---|---|---|---|
Milestone: | Awaiting Review | Priority: | normal |
Severity: | critical | Version: | |
Component: | Editor | Keywords: | |
Focuses: | Cc: |
Description
Hi - if you can reproduce this then I suggest it is a very high priority as it makes re-usable blocks almost useless and frustrating beyond belief.
If a re-usable block is added to a page then expectations are that an edit to that instance will be reflected in the 'master' and any other instances.
However if I add an instance of a re-usable block to a page and then change my mind and use the (html) block editor and choose option delete block I would expect only the instance to be affected - I am not editing (modifying) the instance I am simply removing the instance completely - simple reversal of decision to add an instance of that reusable block ( or so I thought .... )
However the behaviour now observed is that removing an instance is treated identically to the behaviour I would expect if I deleted all of the text (html) within the instance - in other words clear contents of re-usable block leaving an empty re-usable block apart from keeping it's title.
The new behaviour is therefore that when I delete the instance of the re-usable block then the 'master' and all instances now have zero content.
If I edit the 'master' and restore the contents then all instances are restored.
The fault is therefore that block deletion is treated as delete contents of block rather than remove instance from page which has profound and unexpected consequences for any poor person who is simply trying to remove an instance by deleting the instance block.
I now have copies of all my re-usable blocks name "backup-......" so that I can restore my reusable blocks when I encounter this problem which is of course every single time I change my mind and want to remove an instance.
Again if you can reproduce please treat as critical - it is unbelievably disruptive and renders very useful functionality almost more trouble than it's worth.