Size Change: +69 B (0%)

Total Size: 1.4 MB

_{compressed-size-action}

Ems! Sure!

I actually discovered a small issue with the CSS I removed, so I'm going to rebase, and fix that up, and then ask for a last sanity check. But thanks so much for the review so far Ari!

Alright, should be good:

Note that those margins are spread across three files, and ideally they should be only in style.scss. I will follow up with a separate PR to merge those, so we can both simplify the markup, and have only a single file to override if this is to be customized.

Note that those margins are spread across three files, and ideally they should be only in style.scss. I will follow up with a separate PR to merge those, so we can both simplify the markup, and have only a single file to override if this is to be customized.

The styles in theme.scss are identical to the ones in style.scss... The only difference is that style.scss has .wp-block-navigation-link while in theme.scss the selector is duplicated as .wp-block-navigation-link.wp-block-navigation-link for increased specificity.
Perhaps we could remove the theme.scss styles completely? If needed we can increase the specificity in the style.scss rule because yeah, I agree that this duplication doesn't make a lot of sense 🤔

That was my thought exactly.

Created #28878 as an immediate followup.

I'm not sure why the tests keep failing. I'm getting this:

There are local uncommitted changes after one or both of 'npm install' or 'npm run docs:build'!
diff --git a/package-lock.json b/package-lock.json
index 500fa33..fb1291b 100644
--- a/package-lock.json
+++ b/package-lock.json
@@ -45755,9 +45755,9 @@
 					"dev": true
 				},
 				"bl": {
-					"version": "4.0.4",
-					"resolved": "https://registry.npmjs.org/bl/-/bl-4.0.4.tgz",
-					"integrity": "sha512-7tdr4EpSd7jJ6tuQ21vu2ke8w7pNEstzj1O8wwq6sNNzO3UDi5MA8Gny/gquCj7r2C6fHudg8tKRGyjRgmvNxQ==",
+					"version": "4.1.0",
+					"resolved": "https://registry.npmjs.org/bl/-/bl-4.1.0.tgz",
+					"integrity": "sha512-1W07cM9gS6DcLperZfFSj+bWLtaPGSOHWhPiGzXmvVJbRLdG82sH/Kn8EtW1VqWVA54AKf2h5k5BbnIbwF3h6w==",
 					"dev": true,
 					"requires": {
 						"buffer": "^5.5.0",

not sure why this PR would cause that.

@jasmussen just commit them here (or separately to master) as you wish :)

The margin changes are potentially a bit sensitive, so I figured I'd keep things separate ☺️

I'm not sure why the tests keep failing. I'm getting this:

@jasmussen I don't think it's this PR 🙏 . It looks like the recent commits into master have been failing for this reason:

https://github.com/WordPress/gutenberg/commits/master

This makes sense for the horizontal variation, but for the vertical variation (which is also used on the new Navigation screen) this PR adds some unneeded margin:

Great catch, I'll address that. Thank you Shaun.

Alright, in 2eae54d I pushed some tweaks to margins.

But I also discovered that the rabbit hole goes a bit deeper now that the page list has landed. It doesn't make sense to introduce the margin only for the separate menu items. So I'm pausing this one for a bit to give it a bit more time in the oven.

In #28265 @tellthemachines wrote:

Speaking of which, this block rendering a ul container is inconsistent with the current Nav block markup which expects all its children to be li elements. I'm expecting that to be fixed by #24644 / #24364. The Pages block shouldn't be contained in a li as it can be used separately from the Nav block.

It sounds like that might simplify some of the CSS classes, so I have to write less edgecases (adding complexity). Once that's further along, it's probably a good time to rebase this one and pick it up again.

Waiting for #29465.

Alright, this one has been unblocked by the recent refactor of the navigation block. I've rebased, squashed, and simplified, so the changeset is smaller now. The testing instructions are the same — you should see the vertical inserter between menu items in the editor. And you should see a .5em margin between items front and backend:

But because it changed a bit, I would appreciate a re-review or sanity check!