Skip to content

Add input to the test Gutenberg build workflow - #13381

Open
desrosj wants to merge 2 commits into
WordPress:trunkfrom
desrosj:add/input-for-pinning-gutenberg
Open

Add input to the test Gutenberg build workflow#13381
desrosj wants to merge 2 commits into
WordPress:trunkfrom
desrosj:add/input-for-pinning-gutenberg

Conversation

@desrosj

@desrosj desrosj commented Sep 3, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

This adds a new input for the reusable workflow responsible for testing the Gutenberg build script to allow branches to use a specific branch in the gutenberg repository.

This allows for a similar pattern to that used in the end to end testing workflow where a specific version of the Gutenberg plugin is pinned once support for the branch of WordPress running the workflow is dropped.

The motive for this change came about from this failed workflow run, which started failing after https://github.com/wordpress/gutenberg was updated to use Node.js version 24.x instead of 20.x, which is what the 6.8 branch uses.

Trac ticket: Core-66040.

Use of AI Tools

None

This adds a new input for the reusable workflow responsible for testing the Gutenberg build script to allow branches to use  a specific branch in the `gutenberg` repository.

This allows for a similar pattern to that used in the end to end testing workflow where a specific version of the Gutenberg plugin is pinned once support for the branch of WordPress running the workflow is dropped.
@desrosj desrosj self-assigned this Sep 3, 2026
@github-actions

github-actions Bot commented Sep 3, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

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.

Core Committers: Use this line as a base for the props when committing in SVN:

Props desrosj.

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

desrosj added a commit to desrosj/wordpress-develop that referenced this pull request Sep 3, 2026
@desrosj
desrosj requested review from aduth and a lite review from Copilot September 3, 2026 15:03

Copilot AI left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

🟢 Approval recommended

The change is small, self-contained, and consistent with existing workflow input patterns while addressing the stated CI compatibility need.

Pull request overview

This PR updates the reusable GitHub Actions workflow that validates the Gutenberg plugin build process inside a wordpress-develop checkout by allowing callers to pin the Gutenberg repository checkout to a specific branch. This enables older WordPress branches (e.g., ones still using Node.js 20.x) to run the workflow against a compatible Gutenberg branch after upstream changes (e.g., Node.js 24.x) land on trunk.

Changes:

  • Adds a new workflow_call input (gutenberg-branch) to control which Gutenberg branch is checked out.
  • Updates the Gutenberg checkout step to use that input (falling back to trunk when not provided).
File summaries
File Description
.github/workflows/reusable-test-gutenberg-build-process.yml Adds an optional input to pin the Gutenberg checkout ref, defaulting to trunk.
Review details
  • Files reviewed: 1/1 changed files
  • Comments generated: 0
  • Review effort level: Lite

💡 Add a code-review agent skill or configure MCP servers for context-aware, tailored reviews. Learn more in the docs.

@lancewillett lancewillett left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Code and approach look OK to land.

  • The input defaults safely to trunk; linked branch CI verified pinned Gutenberg branches across Linux, macOS, and Windows
  • The original failure is a deterministic Node/Gutenberg dependency mismatch

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

Status: Ready

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants