Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Uses ActionText for MarkdownBlockText content #2287

Draft
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

rosschapman
Copy link
Contributor

No description provided.

Copy link
Member

@zspencer zspencer left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I presume there's something weird happening when we try and just make the change within the MarkdownTextBlock; so I'll pull it down and futz around with it.

I'm a bit surprised tho because ActionText doesn't have a field on the table it belongs to; so I would expect it to work fine with our polymorphic gizmos, so long as it's attached to something that inherits from ActiveRecord (which our Furniture objects do).

@@ -22,6 +22,8 @@ class Furniture < ApplicationRecord

delegate :attributes=, to: :gizmo, prefix: true

has_rich_text :action_content
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Why can't we have the has_rich_text on the MarkdownTextBlock itself?

@zspencer
Copy link
Member

zspencer commented Apr 4, 2024

So, for those following along at-home/in-the-future: We stalled on this because we realized the underlying architecture of Gizmo's needed to be adjusted.

Instead of all Gizmo's living in the Gizmos table, each Gizmo will define it's own "Trunk" in the Data Forest, just as it defines it's own Trunk in the Object Graph. It will likely implement an interface called "Slottable" or some such, but will ultimately be it's own plane-jane ActiveRecord object; rather than a child of all the wild.

I'm going to leave this open, but it's "blocked" until we finish that refactoring.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants