[buddypress-trac] [BuddyPress] #4949: Revise enqueue style locations for theme compat
buddypress-trac
noreply at wordpress.org
Mon Jun 10 02:44:40 UTC 2013
#4949: Revise enqueue style locations for theme compat
-------------------------------------------------+------------------
Reporter: hnla | Owner:
Type: enhancement | Status: new
Priority: low | Milestone: 1.8
Component: Theme | Version:
Severity: normal | Resolution:
Keywords: has-patch 2nd-opinion needs-testing |
-------------------------------------------------+------------------
Changes (by boonebgorges):
* cc: johnjamesjacoby (added)
* keywords: needs-patch => has-patch 2nd-opinion needs-testing
* milestone: 1.9 => 1.8
Comment:
> could we not put in place an interim solution that achieves the outcome
but that has the method improved at a second pass
Yeah, this sounds reasonable to me. My biggest concern is that we don't
want to put in any limited logic that might be used by a plugin or theme
dev during the 1.8.x cycle, thus harming our ability to tear out the
interim solution later on. But the architecture of theme compat means that
I can just make it a private method, and we shouldn't have any problems.
See 4949.02.patch.
I did have to change your logic a little bit. Your `is_child_theme()`
check means that the parent theme is not consulted if the child theme
doesn't have the assets. This is not how theme compat works for templates
- we first check the child, then check the parent, not one or the other.
The only real limitation of 4949.02.patch, other than the fact that it
duplicates some of the _template_stack() stuff elsewhere in BP and thus is
a bit inelegant, is this. The template_stack() architecture allows third
parties to register their own template locations. For example, I do this
in CollabPress and BuddyPress Docs so that I can ship template with the
plugins that can be overridden easily in a theme. Those custom locations
will *not* carry over to CSS/JS assets - the checks in 4949.02.patch are
hardcoded. This can't be worked around at the moment. That said, this is a
real edge case that I doubt anyone would ever have noticed if I hadn't
just written it down :)
I'm going to ask johnjamesjacoby for feedback on this before committing
it. I don't expect him to love it, but I think he'll agree that (a) the
goal is a very good one, and (b) 4949.02.patch is a good-enough interim
solution, which can easily be rethought in BP 1.9 or whenever. hnla, can I
ask you to test the patch to make sure it's acting the way you'd expect?
--
Ticket URL: <https://buddypress.trac.wordpress.org/ticket/4949#comment:5>
BuddyPress <http://buddypress.org/>
BuddyPress
More information about the buddypress-trac
mailing list