Performance: only load editor extensions in the admin context

[kraftbj]

Fixes #39351

Proposed changes:

• More selectively loads the block editor extensions.
• Currently limits it to is_admin, but will examine being more surgical before marking for review.

Other information:

• Have you written new tests for your changes, if applicable?
• Have you checked the E2E test CI results, and verified that your changes do not break them?
• Have you tested your changes on WordPress.com, if applicable (if so, you'll see a generated comment below with a script to run)?

Jetpack product discussion

Does this pull request change what data or activity we track or use?

Testing instructions:

• With patch -- verify no front-end jetpack_blocks_disabled call.
• Verify Jetpack blocks load in the block editor.
• Add some Jetpack blocks to a post and ensure they're present on the front-end.

[github-actions]

Are you an Automattician? Please test your changes on all WordPress.com environments to help mitigate accidental explosions.

• To test on WoA, go to the Plugins menu on a WordPress.com Simple site. Click on the "Upload" button and follow the upgrade flow to be able to upload, install, and activate the Jetpack Beta plugin. Once the plugin is active, go to Jetpack > Jetpack Beta, select your plugin, and enable the remove/loading-gutenberg-ext-frontend branch.

• To test on Simple, run the following command on your sandbox:

  bin/jetpack-downloader test jetpack remove/loading-gutenberg-ext-frontend
  

Interested in more tips and information?

• In your local development environment, use the jetpack rsync command to sync your changes to a WoA dev blog.
• Read more about our development workflow here: PCYsg-eg0-p2
• Figure out when your changes will be shipped to customers here: PCYsg-eg5-p2

[github-actions]

Thank you for your PR!

When contributing to Jetpack, we have a few suggestions that can help us test and review your patch:

• ✅ Include a description of your PR changes.
  
• ✅ Add a "[Status]" label (In Progress, Needs Team Review, ...).
  
• ✅ Add testing instructions.
  
• ✅ Specify whether this PR includes any changes to data or privacy.
  
• ✅ Add changelog entries to affected projects
  

This comment will be updated as you work on your PR and make changes. If you think that some of those checks are not needed for your PR, please explain why you think so. Thanks for cooperation 🤖

---

The e2e test report can be found here. Please note that it can take a few minutes after the e2e tests checks are complete for the report to be available.

---

Follow this PR Review Process:

1. Ensure all required checks appearing at the bottom of this PR are passing.
2. Choose a review path based on your changes:
   • A. Team Review: add the "[Status] Needs Team Review" label
     • For most changes, including minor cross-team impacts.
     • Example: Updating a team-specific component or a small change to a shared library.
   • B. Crew Review: add the "[Status] Needs Review" label
     • For significant changes to core functionality.
     • Example: Major updates to a shared library or complex features.
   • C. Both: Start with Team, then request Crew
     • For complex changes or when you need extra confidence.
     • Example: Refactor affecting multiple systems.
3. Get at least one approval before merging.

Still unsure? Reach out in #jetpack-developers for guidance!

---

Jetpack plugin:

The Jetpack plugin has different release cadences depending on the platform:

• WordPress.com Simple releases happen semi-continuously (PCYsg-Jjm-p2).
• WoA releases happen weekly.
• Releases to self-hosted sites happen monthly. The next release is scheduled for October 1, 2024 (scheduled code freeze on September 30, 2024).

If you have any questions about the release process, please ask in the #jetpack-releases channel on Slack.

[kraftbj]

The option was originally added in #23630 . The solution to be more direct in including the editor extensions would help the front-end, but we would still have an extra db call in wp-admin for this option since it doesn't exist until it is first set.

The option exists just to mock if a module is enabled. I'm leaning toward the question of—what if we just make "blocks" a proper module so the status will be cached like the other modules. Since the option exists, it'll be cached and not need a new db call.

[jeherve]

what if we just make "blocks" a proper module so the status will be cached like the other modules. Since the option exists, it'll be cached and not need a new db call.

That seems like a good idea. We would, however, have to add a routine on plugin upgrade to ensure that folks do not lose access to blocks as they update.

Once we're past that update period, it would make things a lot simpler to have blocks being a proper module I think.

[kraftbj]

Thanks @jeherve. Marking this as ready to review as the changes as they are do remove the calls from the front-end (for 13.9) and will follow-up with a more robust solution.

[anomiex]

Add some Jetpack blocks to a post and ensure they're present on the front-end.

Failed for the VideoPress block. When testing, be sure you got the real VideoPress block and not the embed version.

Glancing at the affected code, it looks like it'll be things in extensions/plugins/ and extensions/extended-blocks/ that will be affected. Most of the blocks are in extensions/blocks/.

[anomiex]

Also, without moving this too you won't really fix #39351. Both of these call the should_load() method that checks the jetpack_blocks_disabled option.

And moving this will likely affect many more blocks. I tried Business Hours and Tiled Gallery, and both broke when moving this line with the other.

[kraftbj]

Thanks. I think this as a bandaid for moving the module is just worse than moving it. Looking at #39449 as an alternative approach.