Backport: rename of reusable blocks to patterns

[glendaviesnz]

Renames the Reusable blocks to Patterns. Also adds the option to convert a block or collection of blocks to a non-synced Pattern. This then behaves as imported Patterns do in that once inserted they can be edited completely independently of any other instances of the Pattern. The synced version of the Pattern works as the existing Reusable blocks do in that editing one instance updates all instances.

Renames the Reusable blocks to Patterns. Also adds the option to convert a block or collection of blocks to a non-synced Pattern. This then behaves as imported Patterns do in that once inserted they can be edited completely independently of any other instances of the Pattern. The synced version of the Pattern works as the existing Reusable blocks do in that editing one instance updates all instances.

From: ​https://github.com/WordPress/gutenberg/pull/51144

Trac ticket: [](https://core.trac.wordpress.org/ticket/58577)

[ramonopoly]

Related to https://core.trac.wordpress.org/ticket/58579

Any thoughts on how to best test this? I did look at adding a unit test to tests/phpunit/tests/rest-api/rest-blocks-controller.php but the wp_register_wp_block_postmeta filter is not run for the rest unit tests so the postmeta is not returned there.

I would say exposing this value through meta is a bit odd for Core. Since this is a first party field, we can expose it as top-level property like sync_status. That'd happen through either modifying the WP_REST_Blocks_Controller or using register_rest_field.

I would say exposing this value through meta is a bit odd for Core. Since this is a first party field, we can expose it as top-level property like sync_status. That'd happen through either modifying the WP_REST_Blocks_Controller or using register_rest_field.

That makes sense @TimothyBJacobs, but would require changes to Gutenberg which I think is about to have the RC version cut. Can we keep it as is for the first beta and update it after that is out? It is a minor implementation detail and doesn't affect the underlying data structure so doesn't seem like it will have any impact to do this as a follow up. What do you think?

Yep that seems fine to me.

Thanks for the reviews everyone!

[isabel_brison]

In 56030:

Editor: rename reusable blocks to patterns.

Renames the Reusable blocks to Patterns and adds an option to convert a block or collection of blocks to a non-synced Pattern.

Props glendaviesnz, ramonopoly, peterwilsoncc, timothyblynjacobs, flixos90.
Fixes #58577.

Committed in r56030 / ​b524268.

[mukesh27]

#58755 was marked as a duplicate.

[afercia]

Just noting that [56030] introduced a string __( 'Add new Pattern' ) where 'new' is lowercase. This is inconsistent with the well established pattern in WordPress, where all similar strings use title case for the word 'New', for example:

__( 'Add New Template' )

Could be fixed in #47125 if the changes proposed there get approved or, alternatively, I think a quick commit would be fine without the need to reopen this ticket or create a new one. Cc @isabel_brison

[isabel_brison]

Thanks for the heads up @afercia ! I'll get it fixed :)

Edit: I'll get it fixed _if_ #47125 ends up not making it, but it seems to be on track for 6.4 so I probably won't have to!

[afercia]

Quickly noting that the lowercase 'n' has been fixed in [56515]. See #47125.