Conversation
Adds a standalone page at /migrating-to-3-0-dev-guide/ covering the PSR-4 namespace refactor, raised WP/PHP minimums, file system changes, and the legacy → replacement hook mapping. Links from the Resources footer. Open questions on hook-count framing, rollback guidance, and an add-on compatibility matrix are flagged as PR comments for engineering/support review before publication. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
WalkthroughA new GravityView 3.0 migration guide is added to the documentation, with a corresponding footer navigation link configured in the site configuration. The guide documents namespace refactoring, minimum version requirements, deprecated features, and step-by-step migration instructions for developers. Changes
Estimated code review effort🎯 2 (Simple) | ⏱️ ~12 minutes 🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 5✅ Passed checks (5 passed)
✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings. ✨ Finishing Touches📝 Generate docstrings
🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out. Comment |
|
|
||
| ## New hooks in 3.0 | ||
|
|
||
| The 3.0 release cycle added roughly 80 new `gk/gravityview/*` hooks. A non-exhaustive list of the most useful ones: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hook-count framing — needs decision
Claim on this line: "The 3.0 release cycle added roughly 80 new gk/gravityview/* hooks."
Branch diff for verification:
origin/develop(2.x): 64 uniquegk/gravityview/*hooksorigin/feature/3.0-styles(3.0): 63 uniquegk/gravityview/*hooks- Net new in 3.0: zero. One (
gk/gravityview/admin/widget-info) was removed.
The gk/gravityview/* namespace was introduced around 2.55 as replacements for the legacy gravityview_* hooks; 3.0 keeps them intact but doesn't add new ones.
Two directions to pick from:
- Reframe the section as "The
gk/gravityview/*hook namespace" with a lead like "GravityView exposes over 60 hooks under this namespace, most introduced in 2.55; 3.0 keeps them intact. The most useful:" - Clarify the intent — is "new in 3.0" meant to include something the grep missed (new parameters on existing hooks, new docblock coverage, etc.)?
GravityView team: which direction?
|
Missing: rollback guidance The guide doesn't cover downgrade safety. During the beta, if a site owner upgrades to 3.0-beta and hits an edge case, can they safely downgrade to 2.x without data loss, option corruption, or broken Views? A short paragraph under "Before you upgrade" along the lines of:
…would pre-empt a significant number of support tickets during the beta. Needs input from:
|
|
Missing: add-on compatibility matrix For site owners running GravityView alongside commercial add-ons, the first question is: "Which versions of my add-ons work with 3.0?" Suggested addition near the bottom of the guide:
Alternative: link out to a separate "GravityView 3.0 add-on compatibility" page that's easier to keep updated than an inline table as each add-on ships its 3.0-compatible release. Needs input from:
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents
Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed.
Inline comments:
In `@src/pages/migrating-to-3-0-dev-guide.md`:
- Around line 530-531: The sentence "The 3.0 release cycle added roughly 80 new
`gk/gravityview/*` hooks." should not publish an unverified numeric claim;
either verify the exact count and include a citation or change the wording to a
non-quantitative statement. Locate the string "The 3.0 release cycle added
roughly 80 new `gk/gravityview/*` hooks." and either replace it with a verified,
cited count (e.g., "The 3.0 release added X new `gk/gravityview/*` hooks
(source: <cite>)") or a neutral phrasing such as "The 3.0 release added many new
`gk/gravityview/*` hooks" until you can confirm and cite the exact number.
🪄 Autofix (Beta)
Fix all unresolved CodeRabbit comments on this PR:
- Push a commit to this branch (recommended)
- Create a new PR with the fixes
ℹ️ Review info
⚙️ Run configuration
Configuration used: Organization UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
Run ID: b96123f3-ab58-4a57-9730-cd2f5f957790
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
docusaurus.config.jssrc/pages/migrating-to-3-0-dev-guide.md
| The 3.0 release cycle added roughly 80 new `gk/gravityview/*` hooks. A non-exhaustive list of the most useful ones: | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Avoid publishing an unverified hook-count claim.
This numeric framing is currently marked as an open question in the PR context. Please either verify and cite the exact count, or use non-quantitative wording until confirmed.
🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed.
In `@src/pages/migrating-to-3-0-dev-guide.md` around lines 530 - 531, The sentence
"The 3.0 release cycle added roughly 80 new `gk/gravityview/*` hooks." should
not publish an unverified numeric claim; either verify the exact count and
include a citation or change the wording to a non-quantitative statement. Locate
the string "The 3.0 release cycle added roughly 80 new `gk/gravityview/*`
hooks." and either replace it with a verified, cited count (e.g., "The 3.0
release added X new `gk/gravityview/*` hooks (source: <cite>)") or a neutral
phrasing such as "The 3.0 release added many new `gk/gravityview/*` hooks" until
you can confirm and cite the exact number.
2 participants
Summary
Adds a developer migration guide for GravityView 3.0 at /migrating-to-3-0-dev-guide/ and links it from the Resources column in the site footer.
The guide covers:
GravityKit\GravityView\*) and the two-layer autoloaderContracts\*InterfacesurfaceFiles changed
src/pages/migrating-to-3-0-dev-guide.md— new standalone pagedocusaurus.config.js— footer link added to the Resources columnEdits already applied to the draft
get_class()break and File system changes up front)support@gravitykit.comfor consistencyfeature/3.0-styles)Open questions
Three items need engineering/support input before publication — see PR comments:
developandfeature/3.0-stylesshows zero net-newgk/gravityview/*hooks)Test plan
/migrating-to-3-0-dev-guide/locally (npm start) and confirm it rendersSummary by CodeRabbit
Release Notes