Experimental: Expand Editor Inspector: Use DataForm experiment to templates

[ntsekouras]

What?

Part of: #76076

This PR expands the Expand Editor Inspector experiment to templates.

Notes

Better reviewed without whitespace: https://github.com/WordPress/gutenberg/pull/76934/changes?w=1

Testing Instructions

1. Enable the Expand Editor Inspector experiment
2. In site editor go to template lists and observe the descriptions are as expected (because now they're using the description field from fields package.
3. Go to edit a template and play around with the post summary panel
4. Try with custom templates too
5. Try editing a template through post editor
6. Some fields like (Posts per page and discussion) in template summary panel are shown only for home/index templates, so you need to test those too
7. The blog title field is show only if you have set a Posts page (reading settings) and then edit home/index templates.

Not a custom template

Before	After

Not a custom template - Home/index template that includes more fields

Before	After

A custom template with description

Before	After

A custom template without a description

Before	After

This case highlights the possible confusion about the lack of an existing description and the way to add one.

We face the same issue for excerpt field, which for now renders an add an excerpt as value (see screenshot below), but is wrong. If we used the excerpt field in DataViews, like we do for the description field, we shouldn't show such a message.

A similar case is the title field where render a (no title) when empty, but it's a special field which uses a well established default copy for a while. Also note that it doesn't contain any action verb and if we were to imitate that field, we'll end up showing (no excerpt/description). Finally the title is by far more important field for an entity than the excerpt/description, so would it be better to show in lists a no description value? 🤔 I believe not.

[github-actions]

Size Change: +1.18 kB (+0.01%)

Total Size: 8.6 MB

📦 View Changed

Filename	Size	Change
build/scripts/edit-site/index.min.js	297 kB	+29 B (+0.01%)
build/scripts/editor/index.min.js	473 kB	+1.15 kB (+0.24%)

_{compressed-size-action}

[github-actions]

Flaky tests detected in 908adc5.
Some tests passed with failed attempts. The failures may not be related to this commit but are still reported for visibility. See the documentation for more information.

🔍 Workflow run URL: https://github.com/WordPress/gutenberg/actions/runs/27814789748
📝 Reported issues:

• [Flaky Test] Should save the changes #78689 in /test/e2e/specs/editor/plugins/wp-editor-meta-box.spec.js
• [Flaky Test] does not dirty related template parts or navigation menus when rendered in the post editor #79294 in /test/e2e/specs/editor/blocks/navigation-passive-rendering.spec.js

[github-actions]

The following accounts have interacted with this PR and/or linked issues. I will continue to update these lists as activity occurs. You can also manually ask me to refresh this list by adding the props-bot label.

If you're merging code through a pull request on GitHub, copy and paste the following into the bottom of the merge commit message.

Co-authored-by: ntsekouras <ntsekouras@git.wordpress.org>
Co-authored-by: oandregal <oandregal@git.wordpress.org>
Co-authored-by: mirka <0mirka00@git.wordpress.org>
Co-authored-by: jameskoster <jameskoster@git.wordpress.org>
Co-authored-by: ciampo <mciampini@git.wordpress.org>
Co-authored-by: jasmussen <joen@git.wordpress.org>
Co-authored-by: fcoveram <fcoveram@git.wordpress.org>

To understand the WordPress project's expectations around crediting contributors, please review the Contributor Attribution page in the Core Handbook.

[ntsekouras]

I think this PR is ready for a final review. IMO the one issue we might want to address is about the case for custom templates without a description. See the A custom template without a description section in the PR description where I expand a bit more about it. Of course we have the edit button on hover affordance but would love some design feedback whether that's enough. --cc @WordPress/gutenberg-design

[jasmussen]

Thanks for the PR. I think it's honeslty ready to land and be iterated upon. Whether that button stays as it is, gets an underline, or becomes secondary, those are options on the table, the key being that it's generic and systematic, the same across similar instances, and notably not CSS.

[jasmussen]

Noting I can still get this to happen:

Doubleclick one item, then click another.

But since that appears unrelated, this one can move.

[ntsekouras]

Noting I can still get this to happen:

Thanks! I'm going to look into these separately soon. As you said they are not related to this PR.

[oandregal]

Thanks for also addressing this field :)

[fcoveram]

I think this PR is ready for a final review. IMO the one issue we might want to address is about the case for custom templates without a description… would love some design feedback whether that's enough.

The current implementation works well IMO. I would iterate in a follow-up ticket the integration of fields that don't need label due to its context.

[oandregal]

This is looking nice, thanks for the iterations.