Update @wordpress npm packages for 6.3 RC2

[isabel_brison]

The @wordpress npm packages have been republished with the bugfixes detailed in this PR: ​https://github.com/WordPress/gutenberg/pull/52863 so they need to be updated in core before RC2.

Trac ticket: https://core.trac.wordpress.org/ticket/58885

Updated packages with bugfixes from ​https://github.com/WordPress/gutenberg/pull/52863.

This PR also includes the fix from #4871, so we may not need to commit that one to the release branch separately.

Unit test failures seem to be due to ​this change; looking into it

I agree with the feedback about the way revisions are being handled in this PR not being ideal. However, I assume these changes will need to be made in the Gutenberg repo so they don't get overwritten during a future sync?

Thanks for the feedback folks! We have to make ​a change in gutenberg already to address the PHP test errors, so I think we can do the renaming while we're at it.

Further fixes available in ​https://github.com/WordPress/gutenberg/pull/52915

Further fixes from ​https://github.com/WordPress/gutenberg/pull/52915 will be updated in the packages

Packages (wp/6.3) are ready for sync

Ok folks I think we've addressed all the feedback now!

I left this further up in the review, but thought it should be here as well so it ends up in the ticket.

My understanding was that the anonymous functions were being used to help with a move to handling postmeta revisions in a more standard way in 6.4.

Do y'all think we'd still want the named functions after doing so?
If not, is there an approach that would allow the developer control necessary + removing them in the future?

My understanding was that the anonymous functions were being used to help with a move to handling postmeta revisions in a more standard way in 6.4.

Maybe, but there's no explanation at ​https://github.com/WordPress/gutenberg/pull/52686 from what I can see.

Do y'all think we'd still want the named functions after doing so?

If there's no concern with back compat / tech debt, I suppose we can keep them anonymous until 6.4 lands 👍

---

Another thing I find very concerning in general is that this post meta revision support is a late-stage enhancement with no unit tests at all.

Not to mention ​https://github.com/WordPress/gutenberg/issues/52812

Right now I tend to agree with ​this comment by Ella:

this bug makes me think that footnotes is not ready for 6.3.

^{cc: @ellatrix for any additional feedback on the couple concerns / topics being talked about}

[isabel_brison]

Note that this commit: https://core.trac.wordpress.org/changeset/56298 should have been attached to this ticket (I added the wrong ticket number to it)

Another thing I find very concerning in general is that this post meta revision support is a late-stage enhancement with no unit tests at all.

I'm considering this to be a bug fix, not an enhancement, because it would not be expected that footnotes stay unchanged when reverting to a previous revision. The fact that this happens because footnotes are tied to post meta is an implementation detail; the behaviour is still buggy. I agree that it would be good to have some unit tests though.

Regarding the functions: I changed them to named functions based on the previous feedback. I'm not too concerned one way or the other as I guess the worst case is they'll have to be deprecated once proper support for post meta in revisions is implemented. But changing them back at this point will require a Gutenberg PR and re-publishing the npm packages, and my bedtime is fast approaching 😅 so I'll have to leave that for someone else to do.

Note that I've already committed this changeset to trunk here.

[audrasjb]

[56298] is approved for backport to branch 6.3 on my side 👍

[audrasjb]

Removing dev-reviewed since there is still a ongoing discussion in the related PR.

[kirasong]

I'm heading out soon as well for the night, but wanted to leave a note here first:

I'm also fine with this getting backported for 6.3 RC2.

I think it's good to have the conversation that's happening, but not at the expense of the package update + set of fixes missing the RC2 deadline.

We can make additional changes after RC2 ships if it's needed / there is consensus later.

There is an e2e test for revisions. We can add more flows if anyone sees a need.

[audrasjb]

Self assigning for 6.3 backport / reviewed by @mikeschroder.

[audrasjb]

This was backported in changeset [56305].

(I copied the trunk commit message and it appears the initial Trac ticket mention was wrong)

Closing this one as it landed in the release branch in https://core.trac.wordpress.org/changeset/56305.