enhance: new header form form builder UI redesign #1497
Conversation
…or_form_builder_ui_redesign
WalkthroughThe pull request introduces enhancements to the form builder and Grunt configuration, specifically integrating Tailwind CSS for improved styling and layout. Modifications include adding a mapping for Tailwind CSS files in the Changes
Assessment against linked issues
Possibly related PRs
Suggested labels
Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 26
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (17)
includes/Admin/views/post-form.php (1)
1-11: Consider architectural implications of the version split.This template introduces a version-based architectural split that affects the form builder UI. While this approach helps with backward compatibility, it requires maintaining two separate implementations. Consider:
- Documenting the differences between old and new implementations
- Planning for eventual deprecation of the legacy version
- Ensuring consistent behavior across both versions
Would you like assistance in creating documentation for the architectural changes or planning the deprecation timeline?
tailwind.config.js (1)
6-10: Consider enhancing the theme configuration.While adding the primary color is a good start, consider the following improvements:
- Add complementary colors (e.g., primary-light, primary-dark) for better UI hierarchy
- Ensure the primary color (#166534) meets WCAG contrast requirements
- Define other essential theme variables like spacing, typography, or breakpoints that might be needed for the form builder UI
Example enhancement:
extend: { colors: { primary: '#166534', + 'primary-light': '#16a34a', + 'primary-dark': '#14532d', + 'primary-contrast': '#ffffff', } },admin/form-builder/assets/js/components/form-radio_field/template.php (1)
5-7: Consider adding an empty state message.When
has_optionsis false, no content will be rendered. Consider adding a fallback message or placeholder to improve user experience.<div v-if="field.inline !== 'yes'" class="wpuf-space-y-6"> + <p v-if="!has_options" class="wpuf-text-sm wpuf-text-gray-500"> + No options available + </p> <div v-if="has_options" v-for="(label, val) in field.options" class="wpuf-flex wpuf-items-center">src/css/admin/form-builder.css (1)
6-8: Consider enhancing button accessibility and interactions.While the button styling is good, consider adding focus and active states, along with transitions for smoother interactions.
.wpuf-btn-primary { - @apply wpuf-rounded-md wpuf-bg-green-800 wpuf-text-white hover:wpuf-bg-green-700 hover:wpuf-text-white wpuf-px-3.5 wpuf-py-2 wpuf-text-sm wpuf-font-semibold; + @apply wpuf-rounded-md wpuf-bg-green-800 wpuf-text-white + hover:wpuf-bg-green-700 hover:wpuf-text-white + focus:wpuf-outline-none focus:wpuf-ring-2 focus:wpuf-ring-green-500 focus:wpuf-ring-offset-2 + active:wpuf-bg-green-900 + wpuf-px-3.5 wpuf-py-2 wpuf-text-sm wpuf-font-semibold + wpuf-transition-colors wpuf-duration-200; }package.json (2)
29-29: Consider upgrading grunt-postcss to the latest version.The current version (^0.9.0) is significantly outdated. The latest version (4.0.0) includes important updates, security patches, and better compatibility with newer PostCSS versions.
- "grunt-postcss": "^0.9.0", + "grunt-postcss": "^4.0.0",
39-41: LGTM! Consider minor version updates.The addition of Tailwind CSS and its supporting dependencies aligns well with the form builder UI redesign objectives. While the current versions are compatible and relatively recent, there are newer versions available:
- tailwindcss: 3.4.1
- autoprefixer: 10.4.17
- postcss: 8.4.35
- "tailwindcss": "^3.3.5", - "autoprefixer": "^10.4.16", - "postcss": "^8.4.31" + "tailwindcss": "^3.4.1", + "autoprefixer": "^10.4.17", + "postcss": "^8.4.35"admin/form-builder/assets/js/components/form-checkbox_field/template.php (1)
2-20: Enhance accessibility for checkbox groupsWhile the layout structure is clean, consider adding ARIA attributes to improve accessibility:
<div v-if="field.inline !== 'yes'" - class="wpuf-space-y-5"> + class="wpuf-space-y-5" + role="group" + :aria-label="field.label"> <div v-if="has_options" v-for="(label, val) in field.options" class="wpuf-relative wpuf-flex wpuf-items-start"> <div class="wpuf-items-center"> <input type="checkbox" :value="val" :checked="is_selected(val)" :class="class_names('checkbox_btns')" + :aria-disabled="field.disabled" class="wpuf-h-4 wpuf-w-4 wpuf-rounded wpuf-border-gray-300 wpuf-text-indigo-600 focus:wpuf-ring-indigo-600">admin/form-builder/assets/js/components/form-taxonomy/template.php (2)
48-48: Enhance help text accessibility.While changing to a
<p>tag improves semantics, consider adding ARIA attributes to better associate the help text with its input field.Apply this improvement:
- <p v-if="field.help" class="wpuf-mt-2 wpuf-text-sm wpuf-text-gray-500" v-html="field.help"></p> + <p v-if="field.help" + :id="`${field.name}-help`" + class="wpuf-mt-2 wpuf-text-sm wpuf-text-gray-500" + v-html="field.help"></p>Then update the corresponding input/select elements to reference this help text:
:class="[...]" + :aria-describedby="field.help ? `${field.name}-help` : undefined"
The ajax taxonomy field implementation needs enhancement for proper selection handling
The codebase analysis reveals that the current implementation lacks proper Vue bindings and event handling for the ajax taxonomy field:
- No
v-modelbinding exists for tracking selected terms- No
@changeevent handler is implemented for selection updates- The component lacks methods for handling term selection events
Recommended implementation:
<div v-if="'ajax' === field.type" class="category-wrap"> <div> - <select> + <select + v-model="selected" + @change="$emit('term-selected', $event.target.value)" + :class="[ + 'wpuf-select-field', + 'wpuf-taxonomy-select' + ]"> <option><?php _e( '— Select —', 'wp-user-frontend' ); ?></option> <option v-for="term in sorted_terms" :key="term.id" :value="term.id">{{ term.name }}</option> </select> </div> </div>The component needs to be updated with:
- Data property for selected term tracking
- Event emission for parent component communication
- Proper Vue reactivity bindings
🔗 Analysis chain
Line range hint
10-17: Verify ajax taxonomy field implementation against issue #650.The current implementation of the ajax taxonomy field appears basic and might not fully address the selection issues mentioned in issue #650. The select element lacks necessary event handlers and v-model binding for proper item selection.
Consider enhancing the implementation:
<div v-if="'ajax' === field.type" class="category-wrap"> <div> - <select> + <select + v-model="selectedTerm" + @change="handleTermSelection" + :class="[ + 'wpuf-block wpuf-w-full wpuf-rounded-md wpuf-border-0 wpuf-text-gray-900 wpuf-ring-1 wpuf-ring-inset wpuf-ring-gray-300 focus:wpuf-ring-2 focus:wpuf-ring-indigo-600 sm:wpuf-text-sm sm:wpuf-leading-6' + ]"> <option><?php _e( '— Select —', 'wp-user-frontend' ); ?></option> - <option v-for="term in sorted_terms" :value="term.id">{{ term.name }}</option> + <option v-for="term in sorted_terms" :key="term.id" :value="term.id">{{ term.name }}</option> </select> </div> </div>Let's verify the implementation of term selection handling:
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for term selection handling in related files echo "Searching for term selection handling..." rg -t js "handleTermSelection|selectedTerm" admin/form-builder/assets/js/components/form-taxonomy/Length of output: 191
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Let's first check the component structure and related files echo "Checking component structure..." fd . admin/form-builder/assets/js/components/form-taxonomy/ # Let's look for any term-related handling in the component echo -e "\nSearching for term-related logic..." rg -t js "terms?" admin/form-builder/assets/js/components/form-taxonomy/ -A 3 # Let's also check for any Vue-related data or methods echo -e "\nSearching for Vue component structure..." ast-grep --pattern 'export default { $$$ }' admin/form-builder/assets/js/components/form-taxonomy/Length of output: 13134
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Let's check the Vue component's data and methods specifically echo "Checking Vue component's data and methods..." rg -t js "data\(\)|methods:" -A 10 admin/form-builder/assets/js/components/form-taxonomy/index.js # Let's also check if there's any event handling for selection echo -e "\nChecking for selection handling..." rg -t js "v-model|@change|\$emit|selection" admin/form-builder/assets/js/components/form-taxonomy/Length of output: 877
Gruntfile.js (1)
Line range hint
2-292: Add documentation for the Tailwind CSS integration.Consider adding comments to document:
- The purpose and structure of the Tailwind integration
- Requirements for adding new file mappings
- Instructions for maintaining the Tailwind configuration
includes/Admin/Forms/Admin_Form_Builder.php (1)
264-268: Extract version comparison into a constant or method.The version check logic could be more maintainable if extracted into a constant or method. This would centralize version management and make future updates easier.
+ private const LEGACY_TEMPLATE_VERSION = '4.0.12'; + + private function should_use_legacy_template(): bool { + return defined('WPUF_PRO_VERSION') && + version_compare(WPUF_PRO_VERSION, self::LEGACY_TEMPLATE_VERSION, '<'); + } + public function include_form_builder() { // ... existing code ... - if (defined('WPUF_PRO_VERSION') && version_compare(WPUF_PRO_VERSION, '4.0.12', '<')) { + if ($this->should_use_legacy_template()) { include WPUF_ROOT . '/admin/form-builder/views/form-builder-old.php'; } else { include WPUF_ROOT . '/admin/form-builder/views/form-builder.php'; } }includes/Admin/Forms/Admin_Form.php (1)
264-268: LGTM! Consider adding ARIA attributes for better accessibility.The Vue.js integration and Tailwind CSS styling look good. The interactive states (hover, focus) are properly handled.
Consider adding ARIA attributes to improve accessibility:
<a href="#wpuf-form-builder-notification" @click="active_tab = 'notification'" :class="active_tab === 'notification' ? 'wpuf-bg-white wpuf-text-gray-800 wpuf-rounded-md wpuf-drop-shadow-sm' : ''" + :aria-selected="active_tab === 'notification'" + role="tab" class="wpuf-nav-tab wpuf-nav-tab-active wpuf-text-gray-800 wpuf-py-2 wpuf-px-4 wpuf-text-sm hover:wpuf-bg-white hover:wpuf-text-gray-800 hover:wpuf-rounded-md hover:wpuf-drop-shadow-sm focus:wpuf-shadow-none">assets/js/wpuf-form-builder.js (1)
880-884: Consider removing commented code.The commented-out resize functionality should either be:
- Removed if no longer needed
- Re-implemented if still required
- // resizeBuilderContainer(); - // - // $("#collapse-menu").click(function () { - // resizeBuilderContainer(); - // });assets/js-templates/form-components.php (2)
424-465: LGTM! Consider adding ARIA attributes for better accessibility.The checkbox field template has been nicely restructured with Tailwind CSS classes and proper layout handling. The implementation looks clean and follows best practices.
Consider adding these ARIA attributes to improve accessibility:
<div class="wpuf-items-center"> <input type="checkbox" :value="val" :checked="is_selected(val)" :class="class_names('checkbox_btns')" + :aria-label="label" class="wpuf-h-4 wpuf-w-4 wpuf-rounded wpuf-border-gray-300 wpuf-text-indigo-600 focus:wpuf-ring-indigo-600"> </div>
Line range hint
795-840: LGTM! Consider enhancing accessibility.The taxonomy field implementation follows the design system and properly handles different field types.
Consider adding ARIA labels for better accessibility:
<select v-if="'select' === field.type" disabled :class="field.name" + :aria-label="field.label" class="wpuf-block wpuf-w-full !wpuf-max-w-full wpuf-rounded-md wpuf-border-0 wpuf-text-gray-900 wpuf-ring-1 wpuf-ring-inset wpuf-ring-gray-300 focus:wpuf-ring-2 focus:wpuf-ring-indigo-600 sm:wpuf-text-sm sm:wpuf-leading-6" v-html="get_term_dropdown_options()"> </select>admin/form-builder/views/form-builder-old.php (2)
42-42: Useabsint()instead ofintval()for sanitizing IDsWhen sanitizing IDs from user input, it's recommended to use
absint()instead ofintval()to ensure the value is a non-negative integer, which is appropriate for IDs.Suggested change:
- $form_id = isset( $_GET['id'] ) ? intval( wp_unslash( $_GET['id'] ) ) : 0; + $form_id = isset( $_GET['id'] ) ? absint( wp_unslash( $_GET['id'] ) ) : 0;🧰 Tools
🪛 GitHub Check: Run PHPCS inspection
[warning] 42-42:
Processing form data without nonce verification.
[warning] 42-42:
Processing form data without nonce verification.
47-47: Simplify and sanitize theprintfstatement for readabilityThe
printfstatement on line 47 is complex and could be simplified for better readability and maintainability. Additionally, ensure all dynamic data is properly sanitized.Suggested refactoring:
<?php $shortcode_type = esc_attr( $shortcode['type'] ); $shortcode_name = esc_attr( $shortcode['name'] ); $shortcode_title = sprintf( esc_html__( 'Click to copy %s shortcode', 'wp-user-frontend' ), $shortcode_type ); $shortcode_text = sprintf( '[%s type="%s" id="%s"]', esc_attr( $shortcode_name ), $shortcode_type, esc_attr( $form_id ) ); $shortcode_label = esc_html( ucwords( $shortcode_type ) ); ?> <span class="form-id" title="<?php echo $shortcode_title; ?>" data-clipboard-text="<?php echo esc_attr( $shortcode_text ); ?>"> <i class="fa fa-clipboard" aria-hidden="true"></i> <?php echo $shortcode_label; ?>: #{{ post.ID }} </span>
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (1)
package-lock.jsonis excluded by!**/package-lock.json
📒 Files selected for processing (24)
Gruntfile.js(5 hunks)admin/form-builder/assets/js/components/form-checkbox_field/template.php(1 hunks)admin/form-builder/assets/js/components/form-dropdown_field/template.php(1 hunks)admin/form-builder/assets/js/components/form-post_title/template.php(1 hunks)admin/form-builder/assets/js/components/form-radio_field/template.php(1 hunks)admin/form-builder/assets/js/components/form-taxonomy/template.php(2 hunks)admin/form-builder/assets/js/components/form-text_field/template.php(1 hunks)admin/form-builder/assets/js/components/form-textarea_field/template.php(1 hunks)admin/form-builder/assets/js/form-builder.js(4 hunks)admin/form-builder/views/form-builder-old.php(1 hunks)admin/form-builder/views/form-builder.php(1 hunks)assets/js-templates/form-components.php(5 hunks)assets/js/wpuf-form-builder.js(4 hunks)includes/Admin/Forms/Admin_Form.php(2 hunks)includes/Admin/Forms/Admin_Form_Builder.php(2 hunks)includes/Admin/Forms/Post/Templates/Form_Template.php(1 hunks)includes/Admin/Posting.php(1 hunks)includes/Admin/template-parts/modal.php(0 hunks)includes/Admin/views/post-form.php(1 hunks)includes/Assets.php(1 hunks)languages/wp-user-frontend.pot(3 hunks)package.json(2 hunks)src/css/admin/form-builder.css(1 hunks)tailwind.config.js(1 hunks)
💤 Files with no reviewable changes (1)
- includes/Admin/template-parts/modal.php
✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (1)
- includes/Assets.php
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 GitHub Check: Run PHPCS inspection
admin/form-builder/views/form-builder-old.php
[warning] 12-12:
Words in hook names should be separated using underscores. Expected: "wpuf_form_builder_tabs_{$form_type}", but found: "wpuf-form-builder-tabs-{$form_type}".
[warning] 42-42:
Processing form data without nonce verification.
[warning] 42-42:
Processing form data without nonce verification.
[warning] 59-59:
Processing form data without nonce verification.
[warning] 100-100:
Words in hook names should be separated using underscores. Expected: "wpuf_form_builder_settings_tabs_{$form_type}", but found: "wpuf-form-builder-settings-tabs-{$form_type}".
[warning] 104-104:
Words in hook names should be separated using underscores. Expected: "wpuf_form_builder_settings_tab_contents_{$form_type}", but found: "wpuf-form-builder-settings-tab-contents-{$form_type}".
[warning] 109-109:
Words in hook names should be separated using underscores. Expected: "wpuf_form_builder_tab_contents_{$form_type}", but found: "wpuf-form-builder-tab-contents-{$form_type}".
admin/form-builder/views/form-builder.php
[warning] 52-52:
Processing form data without nonce verification.
[warning] 52-52:
Processing form data without nonce verification.
[failure] 61-61:
Missing $domain parameter in function call to esc_html_e().
[failure] 61-61:
The $text parameter must be a single text string literal. Found: __( 'Click to copy shortcode', 'wp-user-frontend' )
[failure] 61-61:
Missing $domain parameter in function call to esc_attr_e().
[failure] 61-61:
The $text parameter must be a single text string literal. Found: $shortcodes[0]['name']
[warning] 125-125:
Words in hook names should be separated using underscores. Expected: "wpuf_form_builder_tabs_{$form_type}", but found: "wpuf-form-builder-tabs-{$form_type}".
🔇 Additional comments (41)
includes/Admin/views/post-form.php (1)
8-10: Verify the implementation of the new action hook.
The code introduces a new action hook wpuf_admin_form_builder_view which appears to be part of the UI redesign. Let's verify its implementation and usage across the codebase.
✅ Verification successful
Let me gather more information about the implementation to ensure the action hook is properly set up.
Let me check one final thing to verify the implementation of the include_form_builder method.
The action hook is properly implemented and integrated
The verification shows that:
- The action hook is properly added in
Admin_Form_Builder.phpwith a callback toinclude_form_buildermethod - The method is well-implemented, handling form settings and rendering the form builder view
- The template file
form-builder.phpexists and contains the necessary UI components - The hook is called at the appropriate location in
post-form.php
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify the implementation and usage of the new action hook
# Test 1: Find where the action is added
echo "=== Searching for add_action calls for wpuf_admin_form_builder_view ==="
rg "add_action.*wpuf_admin_form_builder_view"
# Test 2: Find any template files that might be hooked to this action
echo -e "\n=== Searching for potential template files ==="
fd -e php form-builder
Length of output: 640
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check the implementation of the form builder method
echo "=== Checking form builder implementation ==="
rg -A 5 "include_form_builder.*function" includes/Admin/Forms/Admin_Form_Builder.php
# Check the content of the form builder template
echo -e "\n=== Checking form builder template content ==="
cat admin/form-builder/views/form-builder.php
# Check if there are any other usages or references
echo -e "\n=== Checking other references ==="
rg "wpuf_admin_form_builder_view" --type php
Length of output: 13184
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check the include_form_builder method implementation
echo "=== Checking include_form_builder method ==="
rg -B 2 -A 10 "function include_form_builder" includes/Admin/Forms/Admin_Form_Builder.php
Length of output: 718
tailwind.config.js (1)
4-4: LGTM: Content path addition aligns with form builder redesign.
The addition of './admin/form-builder/views/*.php' correctly extends Tailwind's purge configuration to include the form builder template files.
admin/form-builder/assets/js/components/form-post_title/template.php (2)
8-9: LGTM! Well-structured Tailwind CSS implementation.
The class binding and utility classes provide comprehensive styling while maintaining good separation between dynamic and static classes. The styling includes proper focus states, padding, and responsive text sizing.
11-11: LGTM! Improved semantic markup and styling for help text.
Good improvement changing from <span> to <p> for help text, with appropriate spacing and text styling.
admin/form-builder/assets/js/components/form-text_field/template.php (2)
8-9: LGTM! Well-structured Tailwind CSS integration.
The combination of Vue.js class binding and Tailwind utility classes provides a comprehensive styling solution with proper focus states, consistent spacing, and responsive text sizing.
11-11: LGTM! Improved semantic HTML.
Good choice replacing the <span> with a <p> tag for help text, which better represents the content semantically while maintaining consistent styling.
admin/form-builder/assets/js/components/form-dropdown_field/template.php (2)
5-5: LGTM! Well-structured UI improvements.
The changes demonstrate good practices:
- Proper use of Tailwind utility classes with WPUF prefix
- Semantic HTML improvement using
<p>for help text - Consistent styling with the new design system
Also applies to: 14-14
3-3:
Verify if disabling the select element is intentional.
The addition of the disabled attribute prevents user interaction with the dropdown. This seems to conflict with the PR objective of fixing the ajax taxonomy field selection functionality (issue #650).
Please confirm if this is intentional or remove the disabled attribute if it's preventing the proper functionality of the ajax taxonomy field.
admin/form-builder/assets/js/components/form-textarea_field/template.php (4)
5-5: LGTM: Fixed typo in default value binding.
The correction from :deault to :default resolves a critical issue that would have prevented the default value from being properly bound to the textarea.
8-9: LGTM: Enhanced styling with Tailwind utility classes.
The comprehensive set of utility classes provides a well-structured styling approach with:
- Proper spacing and width control
- Consistent border and shadow styling
- Responsive text sizing
- Clear focus states for better accessibility
12-15: LGTM: Improved code formatting for text editor component.
The vertical alignment of attributes enhances code readability while maintaining the component's functionality.
17-17: Verify help text content sanitization.
While the change to <p> element is semantically correct and the styling is well-structured, using v-html directive could pose XSS risks if the help text contains user input.
Let's verify if help text content is properly sanitized:
✅ Verification successful
Let me search for help text sanitization implementation.
Let me try a different approach to find help text handling.
Let me try one final search to find where the help text is being set.
Let me try one final search to find where the help text content is set.
Based on the search results, I can now provide a final response about the help text security concern.
Help text content is properly sanitized before display
The help text is properly sanitized in multiple ways:
- When rendering forms, help text is sanitized using
esc_html()andstripslashes():
<span class="wpuf-help"><?php echo esc_html( stripslashes( $attr['help'] ) ); ?></span>- In admin templates, help text is escaped using
esc_attr()when used as attributes:
<textarea name="<?php echo esc_attr( $help_name ); ?>" ...><?php echo esc_attr( $help_value ); ?></textarea>The use of v-html directive is safe in this context since the help text content goes through proper WordPress escaping functions before being stored and rendered.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for help text sanitization in the codebase
rg -A 5 "field\.help" --type php
Length of output: 22833
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for help text sanitization in the codebase
rg -A 5 "field\['help'\]|field\.help" --type js
Length of output: 55
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for field help text sanitization in Vue components and PHP files
rg -A 5 "sanitize.*help|help.*sanitize" --type js --type php
# Search for Vue component initialization or field processing
ast-grep --pattern 'field = {
$$$
help: $_,
$$$
}'
Length of output: 121
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for field help text assignment or processing
rg -B 2 -A 3 "help.*=|help:" --type js --type php
# Look for field initialization in form builder
ast-grep --pattern 'new Vue({
$$$
data: {
$$$
field: $_,
$$$
}
$$$
})'
Length of output: 151361
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for help text sanitization in PHP files
rg -B 2 -A 3 "sanitize.*field\[.*help|esc_html.*help|esc_attr.*help|wp_kses.*help" --type php
# Look for help text processing in Vue components
ast-grep --pattern 'field = {
$$$
help: $1,
$$$
}'
Length of output: 12053
src/css/admin/form-builder.css (2)
1-3: LGTM! Tailwind imports are correctly structured.
The imports follow the recommended order: base, components, utilities.
11-27: Consider using Tailwind's built-in transition utilities.
These custom utilities might be duplicating Tailwind's built-in functionality. Tailwind provides similar utilities out of the box:
transition-allinstead ofwpuf-transition-allduration-100instead ofwpuf-duration-100ease-outinstead ofwpuf-ease-outscale-95instead ofwpuf-scale-95
If you're not customizing these values, consider using Tailwind's built-in utilities instead of creating custom ones.
package.json (1)
Line range hint 8-10: Verify the necessity of maintaining dual build systems.
The project appears to use both Grunt and Vite build systems. While this might be intentional during a transition period, it's worth verifying if both are actively used to avoid maintenance overhead.
✅ Verification successful
Let me gather more information about the actual usage of Vite in the project since we only see Grunt being actively used.
Let me check one final thing to understand if both build systems are actively used for different purposes.
Both build systems serve different purposes and are actively used
The dual build system setup is intentional and necessary:
- Grunt handles release tasks (less compilation, concatenation, i18n, readme generation)
- Vite specifically manages Vue.js components and modern JavaScript bundling for the subscriptions feature
This separation of concerns is well-structured:
- Grunt:
releasescript for WordPress plugin-related tasks - Vite:
devandbuildscripts for Vue.js development and production builds
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check for active usage of both build systems
# Check Grunt task definitions
echo "Checking Grunt tasks..."
rg -A 5 "grunt.registerTask|grunt.loadNpmTasks" Gruntfile.js
# Check for Vite config and its usage
echo "Checking Vite configuration..."
fd -e js -e ts -g "vite.config.*"
Length of output: 1645
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check for Vite-specific patterns and configurations
echo "Checking for Vite usage patterns..."
# Look for Vite imports or configurations
rg -l "import.*from 'vite'" || rg -l 'require.*vite'
# Check package.json for Vite-related dependencies
echo "Checking package.json for Vite dependencies..."
cat package.json | jq '.dependencies,.devDependencies' | grep -i vite
# Check for Vue components that might be using Vite
echo "Checking for Vue components..."
fd -e vue
Length of output: 1529
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check the actual content of vite.config.mjs and look for any npm scripts using these build tools
echo "Checking vite.config.mjs content..."
cat vite.config.mjs
echo "Checking package.json scripts..."
cat package.json | jq '.scripts'
# Check for any recent changes or commits related to build systems
echo "Checking recent git history for build system changes..."
git log --grep="vite\|grunt" --since="6 months ago" --oneline
Length of output: 1541
admin/form-builder/assets/js/components/form-checkbox_field/template.php (2)
43-43: LGTM! Semantic HTML improvement
Good change from <span> to <p> for help text, improving semantic structure while maintaining consistent styling.
1-43: Verify connection with ajax taxonomy field issue
While the UI improvements are well-implemented, please clarify how these changes relate to the ajax taxonomy field issue (#650) mentioned in the PR objectives.
includes/Admin/Forms/Post/Templates/Form_Template.php (2)
Line range hint 1-89: Verify completeness of UI redesign changes.
While the stylesheet changes support the UI redesign, this file primarily handles form templates. Given that the PR objectives mention fixing ajax taxonomy field issues (#650), additional changes might be needed in other files to fully address the requirements.
Let's check for related changes:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Look for files that might handle ajax taxonomy functionality
# Test 1: Search for ajax taxonomy related files and code
rg -l "ajax.*taxonomy"
# Test 2: Search for taxonomy field class or implementation
ast-grep --pattern 'class $_ implements $_ {
$$$
ajax$_($$$) {
$$$
}
$$$
}'85-89: LGTM! Version-based stylesheet loading looks good.
The conditional loading of stylesheets based on the WPUF Pro version is well-implemented. This change supports the UI redesign effort by ensuring backward compatibility while introducing new styles.
Let's verify the stylesheet registration:
✅ Verification successful
Let me try a different search pattern to locate the stylesheet registrations.
Let me search for the style definitions to verify if both stylesheets are properly registered.
Let me check the asset files directly to verify the existence of these stylesheets.
Both stylesheets exist and are properly handled
The verification confirms that both stylesheets are present in the assets directory:
assets/css/admin/form-builder.css(new admin form builder)assets/css/wpuf-form-builder.css(legacy form builder)
The version-based conditional loading is correctly implemented to maintain backward compatibility while supporting the UI redesign.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify the registration of both stylesheets to ensure they exist.
# Test: Search for stylesheet registration. Expect: Both 'wpuf-form-builder' and 'wpuf-admin-form-builder' to be registered.
rg -A 5 "wp_register_style.*wpuf-(admin-)?form-builder"
Length of output: 351
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for wp_register_style or wp_enqueue_style with form-builder
rg "wp_(register|enqueue)_style.*form-builder" -A 3
# Also search in asset registration functions
rg "register_styles|enqueue_styles" -A 10
Length of output: 3871
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for style definitions in the Assets class
rg "get_styles|styles\s*=\s*\[" -A 20 "includes/Assets.php"
# Also check for any direct stylesheet registrations in admin directories
rg "wp_register_style.*form-builder" "includes/Admin/"
Length of output: 2105
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check if the form builder CSS files exist in the assets directory
fd "form-builder" "assets/css/"
# Also check for any Grunt/webpack configuration that might be building these files
fd "grunt|webpack" -e js -e json
Length of output: 144
Gruntfile.js (2)
121-127: LGTM! Watch configuration is well structured.
The watch target correctly monitors both CSS and PHP files with appropriate performance optimization using spawn: false.
270-274: LGTM! Event handler is properly implemented.
The watch event handler correctly triggers the tailwind task when relevant files change.
includes/Admin/Forms/Admin_Form_Builder.php (2)
272-272: LGTM! Documentation improvement.
The updated documentation clearly specifies the purpose of the i18n strings for WordPress internationalization.
51-51: Clarify the necessity of duplicate action hooks.
The new hook wpuf_admin_form_builder_view calls the same method as the existing wpuf_admin_form_builder hook. Consider documenting the purpose of having both hooks or consolidate them if one is intended to replace the other.
✅ Verification successful
Let me gather more context about the view file to understand the relationship between these hooks.
The duplicate hooks are intentionally used for version compatibility
The two hooks serve different purposes in a version-dependent context:
wpuf_admin_form_builderis used for PRO versions below 4.0.12wpuf_admin_form_builder_viewis the new hook for version 4.0.12 and above
The implementation is correct as it maintains backward compatibility while introducing a new hook structure for newer versions.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for usages of both hooks to understand their contexts
echo "Searching for wpuf_admin_form_builder hook usage:"
rg "do_action\(\s*['\"]wpuf_admin_form_builder['\"]" -A 2
echo -e "\nSearching for wpuf_admin_form_builder_view hook usage:"
rg "do_action\(\s*['\"]wpuf_admin_form_builder_view['\"]" -A 2
Length of output: 708
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Get the content of post-form.php to understand hook usage context
echo "Content of includes/Admin/views/post-form.php:"
cat includes/Admin/views/post-form.php
Length of output: 413
includes/Admin/Forms/Admin_Form.php (2)
284-284: LGTM! Class addition is consistent with the tab styling pattern.
The addition of the wpuf-nav-tab class maintains consistency with the tab styling system.
Line range hint 1-1: Verify implementation of ajax taxonomy field fix.
While the UI changes look good, I don't see changes addressing the ajax taxonomy field selection issue (#650) mentioned in the PR objectives. This might be implemented in other files, but let's verify.
includes/Admin/Posting.php (1)
42-46: Verify UI changes with ajax taxonomy field functionality.
Since this style change is part of the form builder UI redesign, please ensure it doesn't affect the ajax taxonomy field functionality mentioned in issue #650.
admin/form-builder/assets/js/form-builder.js (3)
413-416: LGTM! Well-structured data properties
The new Vue data properties are well-organized and follow Vue.js best practices for managing component state.
454-454: LGTM! Fixed syntax error
Added missing closing brace to fix the meta_field_key computed property.
485-494: LGTM! Improved user feedback
Enhanced clipboard functionality with more descriptive tooltip text and proper state management.
assets/js/wpuf-form-builder.js (4)
413-416: LGTM: New state properties for enhanced form management.
The new properties improve state management for:
- Form modification tracking (
isDirty) - Multi-step form support (
enableMultistep) - UI feedback (
shortcodeCopied) - Tab navigation (
active_tab)
454-454: Fix: Add missing closing brace in computed property.
The meta_field_key computed property was missing its closing brace, which has been correctly added.
485-494: Enhance clipboard feedback mechanism.
The tooltip text has been improved for better user feedback when copying shortcodes. The implementation correctly:
- Updates tooltip text
- Manages state via
shortcodeCopied - Includes proper cleanup
Line range hint 887-895: Review the necessity of the resize function.
The resizeBuilderContainer function appears to be unused since its calls are commented out. Consider:
- Removing the function if it's no longer needed
- Re-enabling it if the functionality is still required
✅ Verification successful
Let me check the context of these function calls to better understand if they are truly unused or just commented out temporarily.
Remove the unused resizeBuilderContainer function and its commented-out calls
The verification confirms that resizeBuilderContainer function and its calls are completely commented out in both locations where it appears (assets/js/wpuf-form-builder.js and admin/form-builder/assets/js/form-builder.js). The function is defined but never used in the codebase, suggesting it's dead code that should be removed for better maintainability.
- Remove the entire
resizeBuilderContainerfunction definition (lines 877-887) - Remove the commented-out function calls and click handler
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check if resizeBuilderContainer is used elsewhere in the codebase
rg "resizeBuilderContainer" --type js
Length of output: 509
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Get more context around the resizeBuilderContainer occurrences
rg "resizeBuilderContainer" --type js -B 5 -A 5
Length of output: 2338
assets/js-templates/form-components.php (4)
538-549: LGTM! Dropdown styling follows design system.
The dropdown implementation uses appropriate Tailwind CSS classes and properly handles the disabled state for the preview.
733-741: LGTM! Post title field follows design patterns.
The implementation maintains consistency with other field types and properly implements the design system.
846-854: LGTM! Text field implementation is consistent.
The text field follows the design system and maintains consistency with other field types.
863-875: LGTM! Textarea implementation handles both modes correctly.
The textarea field properly handles both rich and plain text modes while maintaining consistent styling.
languages/wp-user-frontend.pot (2)
310-332: LGTM! Form builder UI strings are well-structured.
The translation strings for the form builder interface are properly formatted and follow WordPress i18n best practices. The strings are clear and user-friendly.
933-1011: LGTM! Form editor strings are properly internationalized.
The translation strings for the form editor functionality are well-structured and provide clear user feedback messages. They follow WordPress i18n best practices.
admin/form-builder/views/form-builder-old.php (2)
1-120: Overall code quality is good
The form builder interface is well-structured, and the use of Vue.js enhances the interactivity. With the suggested improvements, the code will be more secure and maintainable.
🧰 Tools
🪛 GitHub Check: Run PHPCS inspection
[warning] 12-12:
Words in hook names should be separated using underscores. Expected: "wpuf_form_builder_tabs_{$form_type}", but found: "wpuf-form-builder-tabs-{$form_type}".
[warning] 42-42:
Processing form data without nonce verification.
[warning] 42-42:
Processing form data without nonce verification.
[warning] 59-59:
Processing form data without nonce verification.
[warning] 100-100:
Words in hook names should be separated using underscores. Expected: "wpuf_form_builder_settings_tabs_{$form_type}", but found: "wpuf-form-builder-settings-tabs-{$form_type}".
[warning] 104-104:
Words in hook names should be separated using underscores. Expected: "wpuf_form_builder_settings_tab_contents_{$form_type}", but found: "wpuf-form-builder-settings-tab-contents-{$form_type}".
[warning] 109-109:
Words in hook names should be separated using underscores. Expected: "wpuf_form_builder_tab_contents_{$form_type}", but found: "wpuf-form-builder-tab-contents-{$form_type}".
1-120: Verify proper sanitization of all outputted variables
Ensure that all variables outputted to the browser are properly sanitized using appropriate WordPress functions to prevent XSS vulnerabilities.
Please run the following script to scan for unsanitized variables:
✅ Verification successful
Based on the scan results, I can now provide a final response:
All variables are properly sanitized - no security concerns found
After reviewing the code, all PHP variables being output are properly sanitized:
$form_typeusesesc_attr()$form->post_titleusesesc_html()- URLs use
esc_url() - Form IDs and settings keys use
esc_attr() - Translations use
esc_html_e() - User input from
$_GETis sanitized usingintval()andwp_unslash()
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Scan for echo/print statements with unsanitized variables.
# Expected: All variables should be sanitized with proper functions like esc_attr(), esc_html(), esc_url(), etc.
rg -P "(echo|print)(?!.*(esc_attr|esc_html|esc_url|wp_kses_post))\s*\(.*\$\w+" admin/form-builder/views/form-builder-old.php
Length of output: 125
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's try a different approach to find potential unsanitized variables
# Look for PHP echo/print statements and variable usage in the file
rg -U "(?:\<\?php.*?\?\>|\<\?=.*?\?\>)" admin/form-builder/views/form-builder-old.php
# Also check for direct variable interpolation in HTML attributes
rg "=\"\$.*?\"" admin/form-builder/views/form-builder-old.php
Length of output: 249
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's try a simpler approach to find PHP code blocks and variable usage
rg "<?php" -A 5 admin/form-builder/views/form-builder-old.php
# Look for echo statements
rg "echo" -A 2 admin/form-builder/views/form-builder-old.php
# Check variable usage in attributes
rg "\$\w+" admin/form-builder/views/form-builder-old.php
Length of output: 5938
🧰 Tools
🪛 GitHub Check: Run PHPCS inspection
[warning] 12-12:
Words in hook names should be separated using underscores. Expected: "wpuf_form_builder_tabs_{$form_type}", but found: "wpuf-form-builder-tabs-{$form_type}".
[warning] 42-42:
Processing form data without nonce verification.
[warning] 42-42:
Processing form data without nonce verification.
[warning] 59-59:
Processing form data without nonce verification.
[warning] 100-100:
Words in hook names should be separated using underscores. Expected: "wpuf_form_builder_settings_tabs_{$form_type}", but found: "wpuf-form-builder-settings-tabs-{$form_type}".
[warning] 104-104:
Words in hook names should be separated using underscores. Expected: "wpuf_form_builder_settings_tab_contents_{$form_type}", but found: "wpuf-form-builder-settings-tab-contents-{$form_type}".
[warning] 109-109:
Words in hook names should be separated using underscores. Expected: "wpuf_form_builder_tab_contents_{$form_type}", but found: "wpuf-form-builder-tab-contents-{$form_type}".
| <?php do_action( 'wpuf_admin_form_builder' ); ?> | ||
| </div> | ||
| <?php | ||
| if ( defined( 'WPUF_PRO_VERSION' ) && version_compare( WPUF_PRO_VERSION, '4.0.12', '<' ) ) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Add a fallback for undefined WPUF_PRO_VERSION.
The version check should handle cases where WPUF_PRO_VERSION is not defined to ensure graceful degradation.
Apply this diff:
-if ( defined( 'WPUF_PRO_VERSION' ) && version_compare( WPUF_PRO_VERSION, '4.0.12', '<' ) ) {
+if ( ! defined( 'WPUF_PRO_VERSION' ) || version_compare( WPUF_PRO_VERSION, '4.0.12', '<' ) ) {📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| if ( defined( 'WPUF_PRO_VERSION' ) && version_compare( WPUF_PRO_VERSION, '4.0.12', '<' ) ) { | |
| if ( ! defined( 'WPUF_PRO_VERSION' ) || version_compare( WPUF_PRO_VERSION, '4.0.12', '<' ) ) { |
| @@ -1,10 +1,12 @@ | |||
| <div class="wpuf-fields"> | |||
| <input | |||
| disabled | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Remove the disabled attribute from the post title input.
The disabled attribute prevents user input, which contradicts the purpose of a post title field in a form builder. Users need to be able to enter and edit post titles.
Apply this diff to fix the issue:
<input
- disabled
type="text"
:placeholder="field.placeholder"📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| disabled | |
| type="text" | |
| :placeholder="field.placeholder" |
| @@ -1,10 +1,12 @@ | |||
| <div class="wpuf-fields"> | |||
| <input | |||
| disabled | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Remove the disabled attribute.
The disabled attribute prevents user interaction with the text field, which appears to be unintentional and contradicts the form's purpose. This could be blocking users from entering data.
Apply this diff to fix the issue:
<input
- disabled
type="text"📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| disabled | |
| type="text" |
| <input | ||
| type="radio" | ||
| class="wpuf-h-4 wpuf-w-4 wpuf-border-gray-300 wpuf-text-indigo-600 focus:wpuf-ring-indigo-600"> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Add required Vue.js directives for proper functionality.
The radio input is missing essential Vue.js directives:
v-modelfor two-way data binding:keyattribute for v-for iterationnameattribute to group radio buttons
<input
type="radio"
+ v-model="field.value"
+ :name="field.name"
+ :key="val"
class="wpuf-h-4 wpuf-w-4 wpuf-border-gray-300 wpuf-text-indigo-600 focus:wpuf-ring-indigo-600">Committable suggestion skipped: line range outside the PR's diff.
|
|
||
| <span v-if="field.help" class="wpuf-help" v-html="field.help"/> | ||
| <p v-if="field.help" class="wpuf-mt-2 wpuf-text-sm wpuf-text-gray-500" v-html="field.help"></p> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sanitize help text to prevent XSS attacks.
Using v-html with potentially unsafe content can lead to XSS vulnerabilities. Consider either:
- Using
v-textif HTML rendering is not required - Implementing proper sanitization before rendering
-<p v-if="field.help" class="wpuf-mt-2 wpuf-text-sm wpuf-text-gray-500" v-html="field.help"></p>
+<p v-if="field.help" class="wpuf-mt-2 wpuf-text-sm wpuf-text-gray-500" v-text="field.help"></p>If HTML rendering is necessary, implement sanitization:
+computed: {
+ sanitizedHelp() {
+ return this.sanitizeHTML(this.field.help);
+ }
+},Then use:
-<p v-if="field.help" class="wpuf-mt-2 wpuf-text-sm wpuf-text-gray-500" v-html="field.help"></p>
+<p v-if="field.help" class="wpuf-mt-2 wpuf-text-sm wpuf-text-gray-500" v-html="sanitizedHelp"></p>Committable suggestion skipped: line range outside the PR's diff.
|
|
||
| <i :class="(is_form_switcher ? 'fa fa-angle-up' : 'fa fa-angle-down') + ' form-switcher-arrow'" @click.prevent="switch_form"></i> | ||
| <?php | ||
| $form_id = isset( $_GET['id'] ) ? intval( wp_unslash( $_GET['id'] ) ) : 0; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Add nonce verification when processing user input
Processing user input without nonce verification can make the application vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) attacks. Ensure that you verify a nonce when handling data from $_GET['id'].
Suggested addition:
At the beginning of your script, verify the nonce:
if ( ! isset( $_GET['wpuf_nonce'] ) || ! wp_verify_nonce( $_GET['wpuf_nonce'], 'wpuf_form_builder_nonce' ) ) {
// Nonce is invalid; handle accordingly.
wp_die( 'Invalid request.' );
}When generating the URLs, include the nonce:
- <?php echo esc_url( admin_url( 'admin.php?page=wpuf-' . $form_type . '-forms&action=edit&id=' . $form->ID ) ); ?>
+ <?php echo esc_url( admin_url( 'admin.php?page=wpuf-' . $form_type . '-forms&action=edit&id=' . $form->ID . '&wpuf_nonce=' . wp_create_nonce( 'wpuf_form_builder_nonce' ) ) ); ?>Also applies to: 59-59
🧰 Tools
🪛 GitHub Check: Run PHPCS inspection
[warning] 42-42:
Processing form data without nonce verification.
[warning] 42-42:
Processing form data without nonce verification.
| <input type="hidden" name="form_settings_key" value="<?php echo esc_attr( $form_settings_key ); ?>"> | ||
| <?php } ?> | ||
|
|
||
| <?php wp_nonce_field( 'wpuf_form_builder_save_form', 'wpuf_form_builder_nonce' ); ?> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ensure nonce verification during form submission handling
While you have added a nonce field in the form (line 116), please ensure that this nonce is properly verified on form submission to protect against CSRF attacks.
| <?php esc_html_e( 'Settings', 'wp-user-frontend' ); ?> | ||
| </a> | ||
|
|
||
| <?php do_action( "wpuf-form-builder-tabs-{$form_type}" ); ?> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Use underscores instead of hyphens in hook names
Per WordPress coding standards, words in hook names should be separated using underscores rather than hyphens. This ensures consistency and avoids potential conflicts.
Apply this diff to correct the hook name:
-<?php do_action( "wpuf-form-builder-tabs-{$form_type}" ); ?>
+<?php do_action( "wpuf_form_builder_tabs_{$form_type}" ); ?>Note: Update any hooked functions accordingly to maintain functionality.
📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| <?php do_action( "wpuf-form-builder-tabs-{$form_type}" ); ?> | |
| <?php do_action( "wpuf_form_builder_tabs_{$form_type}" ); ?> |
🧰 Tools
🪛 GitHub Check: Run PHPCS inspection
[warning] 125-125:
Words in hook names should be separated using underscores. Expected: "wpuf_form_builder_tabs_{$form_type}", but found: "wpuf-form-builder-tabs-{$form_type}".
| </nav> | ||
|
|
||
| <?php | ||
| $form_id = isset( $_GET['id'] ) ? intval( wp_unslash( $_GET['id'] ) ) : 0; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Add nonce verification to secure form data processing
Processing form data without nonce verification can lead to security vulnerabilities like CSRF attacks. It's important to verify a nonce before using data from $_GET.
Apply this diff to add nonce verification:
<?php
+$nonce_verified = isset( $_GET['_wpnonce'] ) && wp_verify_nonce( $_GET['_wpnonce'], 'wpuf_form_builder_nonce' );
+$form_id = ( $nonce_verified && isset( $_GET['id'] ) ) ? intval( wp_unslash( $_GET['id'] ) ) : 0;
+if ( ! $nonce_verified ) {
+ // Handle invalid nonce, e.g., display an error message or redirect
+}📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| $form_id = isset( $_GET['id'] ) ? intval( wp_unslash( $_GET['id'] ) ) : 0; | |
| $nonce_verified = isset( $_GET['_wpnonce'] ) && wp_verify_nonce( $_GET['_wpnonce'], 'wpuf_form_builder_nonce' ); | |
| $form_id = ( $nonce_verified && isset( $_GET['id'] ) ) ? intval( wp_unslash( $_GET['id'] ) ) : 0; | |
| if ( ! $nonce_verified ) { | |
| wp_die( esc_html__( 'Security check failed', 'wp-user-frontend' ) ); | |
| } |
🧰 Tools
🪛 GitHub Check: Run PHPCS inspection
[warning] 52-52:
Processing form data without nonce verification.
[warning] 52-52:
Processing form data without nonce verification.
| } | ||
| } else { | ||
| ?> | ||
| <span class="form-id wpuf-group wpuf-flex wpuf-items-center wpuf-px-2 wpuf-rounded-md wpuf-border wpuf-border-gray-300 hover:wpuf-cursor-pointer wpuf-ml-6" title="<?php esc_html_e( __( 'Click to copy shortcode', 'wp-user-frontend' ) ); ?>" data-clipboard-text="<?php '[' . esc_attr_e( $shortcodes[0]['name'] ) . ' id="' . esc_attr( $form_id ) . '"]'; ?>">#{{ post.ID }} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Correct the usage of translation and escaping functions
There are issues with the usage of esc_html_e(), esc_attr_e(), and __(). Nesting translation functions and improper use of escaping functions may lead to unexpected behavior.
Apply this diff to correct the function calls:
- title="<?php esc_html_e( __( 'Click to copy shortcode', 'wp-user-frontend' ) ); ?>"
+ title="<?php esc_attr_e( 'Click to copy shortcode', 'wp-user-frontend' ); ?>"And for the data-clipboard-text attribute:
- data-clipboard-text="<?php '[' . esc_attr_e( $shortcodes[0]['name'] ) . ' id="' . esc_attr( $form_id ) . '"]'; ?>"
+ data-clipboard-text="<?php echo esc_attr( '[' . $shortcodes[0]['name'] . ' id="' . $form_id . '"]' ); ?>"Explanation:
- Use
esc_attr_e()directly with the text and domain parameters. - For
data-clipboard-text, useecho esc_attr()to output the escaped attribute value without unintended output fromesc_attr_e().
📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| <span class="form-id wpuf-group wpuf-flex wpuf-items-center wpuf-px-2 wpuf-rounded-md wpuf-border wpuf-border-gray-300 hover:wpuf-cursor-pointer wpuf-ml-6" title="<?php esc_html_e( __( 'Click to copy shortcode', 'wp-user-frontend' ) ); ?>" data-clipboard-text="<?php '[' . esc_attr_e( $shortcodes[0]['name'] ) . ' id="' . esc_attr( $form_id ) . '"]'; ?>">#{{ post.ID }} | |
| <span class="form-id wpuf-group wpuf-flex wpuf-items-center wpuf-px-2 wpuf-rounded-md wpuf-border wpuf-border-gray-300 hover:wpuf-cursor-pointer wpuf-ml-6" title="<?php esc_attr_e( 'Click to copy shortcode', 'wp-user-frontend' ); ?>" data-clipboard-text="<?php echo esc_attr( '[' . $shortcodes[0]['name'] . ' id="' . $form_id . '"]' ); ?>">#{{ post.ID }} |
🧰 Tools
🪛 GitHub Check: Run PHPCS inspection
[failure] 61-61:
Missing $domain parameter in function call to esc_html_e().
[failure] 61-61:
The $text parameter must be a single text string literal. Found: __( 'Click to copy shortcode', 'wp-user-frontend' )
[failure] 61-61:
Missing $domain parameter in function call to esc_attr_e().
[failure] 61-61:
The $text parameter must be a single text string literal. Found: $shortcodes[0]['name']
Rubaiyat-E-Mohammad
added
QA In Progress
QA Approved
sapayth
added
sub-task
fixes #650
header part of a post form UI re-vamp with updated design
image:
Summary by CodeRabbit
Release Notes
New Features
User Interface Enhancements
Localization Improvements
Bug Fixes