Forms: fix inconsistent weights in outline style and terms labels #43545

ramonjd · 2025-05-21T05:05:58Z

Proposed changes:

Ensure that existing font-weight CSS does not override block and global label styles by adjusting specificity of default font-weight rules. This ensures consistency in frontend and editor.
Ensure the terms and condition label is consistent in frontend and editor, and is overridable by global styles (jetpack/option)

Testing instructions:

Create an outlined form block with:

inputs
multi options
select
terms
text area

In global styles, update the typography appearance for the jetpack/label block to bold and italic or some other conspicuous combo.

Save that. Check that the frontend and editor are consistent.

Before (editor wasn't displaying the global font weight)

After (it now does)

Now reset your global styles for the label block.

Head to the post editor and apply a typography appearance to the label.

Check that the frontend and editor are consistent.

Before

Editor	Frontend

After

Editor	Frontend

Also check that the terms and conditions label has a weight of 400 in both the frontend and editor. The frontend has always been 400.

Before

After

github-actions · 2025-05-21T05:06:45Z

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 WoA dev 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 (Jetpack), and enable the fix/forms-inner-blocks-label-font-weight-specificity branch.
To test on Simple, run the following command on your sandbox:

bin/jetpack-downloader test jetpack fix/forms-inner-blocks-label-font-weight-specificity

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 · 2025-05-21T05:07:03Z

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 Review, ...).
🔴 Add a "[Type]" label (Bug, Enhancement, Janitorial, Task).
✅ 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 🤖

🔴 Action required: We would recommend that you add a section to the PR description to specify whether this PR includes any changes to data or privacy, like so:

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

My PR adds *x* and *y*.

🔴 Action required: Please add missing changelog entries for the following projects: projects/packages/forms

Use the Jetpack CLI tool to generate changelog entries by running the following command: jetpack changelog add.
Guidelines: /docs/writing-a-good-changelog-entry.md

Follow this PR Review Process:

Ensure all required checks appearing at the bottom of this PR are passing.
Make sure to test your changes on all platforms that it applies to. You're responsible for the quality of the code you ship.
You can use GitHub's Reviewers functionality to request a review.
When it's reviewed and merged, you will be pinged in Slack to deploy the changes to WordPress.com simple once the build is done.

If you have questions about anything, reach out in #jetpack-developers for guidance!

jp-launch-control · 2025-05-21T05:14:55Z

Code Coverage Summary

No summary data is available for parent commit dd7773c, so cannot calculate coverage changes. 😴

If that commit is a feature branch rather than a trunk commit, this is expected. Otherwise, this should be updated once coverage for dd7773c is available.

Full summary · PHP report · JS report

projects/packages/forms/src/blocks/contact-form/editor.scss

projects/packages/forms/src/contact-form/css/grunion.css

…bal label styles.

andrewserong · 2025-05-22T04:09:07Z

projects/packages/forms/src/contact-form/css/grunion.css

+}
+
+
+:where(.contact-form label.consent) {


I think this specificity reduction is causing font-weight: 700 to win out, along with allowing themes to accidentally cause the text to be larger than intended. In testing with TwentyTwenty this is what I'm seeing:

Trunk This PR

I'm aware you moved the specificity back in 0791de8, though — these specificity changes sure are tricky to change! 😓

Oh dang. I'm not sure what the right thing to do is here.

How much should we pay attention to the styles of every theme? I'm not sure it's a winning game.

Maybe for the consent field it's okay to raise specificity. I think the only major result is that global styles changes to label typography will be overwritten. 🤔

In this case, it's the grunion CSS that appears to be winning out and setting font-weight: 700 at least?

How much should we pay attention to the styles of every theme? I'm not sure it's a winning game.

Me either. In contrast to what we might do in core, I think Jetpack being opinionated is fine, and if themes set general rules for how labels should appear, I think that's probably okay, too.

From testing locally, I think the consent specificity can be upped back to .contact-form :where(label.consent) as setting the font-weight in global styles winds up being output as :root :where(.wp-block-jetpack-option) { which seems to win out?

So in this case, I think global styles rules still work okay with slightly upped specificity, but I very well might be missing something in my testing!

Thank you for testing that!

By Jove, you're right!

Global styles looking good. Here's me updating the option block font appearance:

Editor Frontend

Both are 400 otherwise 👍🏻

Done in c875ed7

andrewserong

All testing well for me, now! Might be worth double checking that this doesn't conflict with @talldan's specificity work, but otherwise looks good to merge in to me 👍

talldan · 2025-05-22T06:15:24Z

Might be worth double checking that this doesn't conflict with @talldan's specificity work, but otherwise looks good to merge in to me 👍

Yep, I'm reviewing now if you can hold off merging. At a first glance a lot of these selectors seem too high/low specificity.

0-1-0 should be the rule of thumb.

talldan · 2025-05-22T06:24:00Z

projects/packages/forms/src/blocks/contact-form/editor.scss

-		font-weight: 400;
-	}
+.jetpack-field-consent,
+.jetpack-field-checkbox .jetpack-field-label .jetpack-field-label__input {


From what I can tell this selector isn't doing anything. I guess it's the same selector that was used in trunk, but what I'm not sure about is if it's working in trunk due to the different markup.

It's very high specificity, so if it did work it'd probably break global styles. 😅

I think we can either remove it, or fix it and change it to 0-1-0 specificity

Just for clarification, it's the .jetpack-field-checkbox .jetpack-field-label .jetpack-field-label__input one that I'm referring to.

talldan · 2025-05-22T06:35:17Z

projects/packages/forms/src/blocks/contact-form/editor.scss

@@ -1065,6 +1066,10 @@
 	font-weight: 700;
 }

+:where(.is-style-outlined .wp-block-jetpack-label) {


This is making the specificity 0-0-0. Elsewhere we're using 0-1-0 specificity for these kind of styles, the rationale being that we want to override css resets which are often 0-0-1, but still stay low enough for global styles and block styles so that they can override.

Hard to say if a theme would change the label font size, but I think a small bump in specificity is safest.

talldan · 2025-05-22T06:40:04Z

projects/packages/forms/src/contact-form/css/grunion.css

+:where( .grunion-checkbox-multiple-options legend ),
+:where( .grunion-radio-options legend ) {


What's the rationale for reducing to zero? In general I think it should also be aiming for 0-1-0 for consistency, otherwise themes have a hard time working around it.

No rationale. I'm playing Whac-A-Mole. 😄

0-1-0 for consistency

I'll fix this, thanks for confirming!

github-actions bot added [Block] Contact Form Form block (also see Contact Form label) [Feature] Contact Form [Package] Forms [Status] In Progress labels May 21, 2025

github-actions bot added the [Status] Needs Author Reply We need more details from you. This label will be auto-added until the PR meets all requirements. label May 21, 2025

ramonjd changed the title … Forms: fix inconsistent weights in outline style and terms labels May 21, 2025

ramonjd marked this pull request as ready for review May 21, 2025 05:19

ramonjd self-assigned this May 21, 2025

ramonjd requested review from andrewserong and talldan May 21, 2025 05:19

andrewserong reviewed May 21, 2025

View reviewed changes

projects/packages/forms/src/blocks/contact-form/editor.scss Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

andrewserong reviewed May 21, 2025

View reviewed changes

projects/packages/forms/src/contact-form/css/grunion.css Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

ramonjd force-pushed the fix/forms-inner-blocks-label-font-weight-specificity branch from 507e24c to d364658 Compare May 22, 2025 01:13

ramonjd added 3 commits May 22, 2025 11:43

Ensure that existing font-weight styles do not override block and glo…

26963e5

…bal label styles.

Consent weights

2124d77

Revert options positioning kram

742cd8c

ramonjd force-pushed the fix/forms-inner-blocks-label-font-weight-specificity branch from d364658 to 742cd8c Compare May 22, 2025 01:44

Increase specificity to 0 1 0 for classic themes

0791de8

andrewserong reviewed May 22, 2025

View reviewed changes

Bump specificity of consent label

c875ed7

andrewserong approved these changes May 22, 2025

View reviewed changes

talldan reviewed May 22, 2025

View reviewed changes

Bump specificity

ff31c06

		:where( .grunion-checkbox-multiple-options legend ),
		:where( .grunion-radio-options legend ) {

		}


		:where(.contact-form label.consent) {

Forms: fix inconsistent weights in outline style and terms labels #43545

Are you sure you want to change the base?

Forms: fix inconsistent weights in outline style and terms labels #43545

Uh oh!

Conversation

ramonjd commented May 21, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Proposed changes:

Testing instructions:

Before (editor wasn't displaying the global font weight)

After (it now does)

Before

After

Before

After

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented May 21, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented May 21, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

jp-launch-control bot commented May 21, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Code Coverage Summary

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

andrewserong May 22, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

andrewserong left a comment • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

talldan commented May 22, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

talldan May 22, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

talldan May 22, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

ramonjd commented May 21, 2025 •

edited

Loading

github-actions bot commented May 21, 2025 •

edited

Loading

github-actions bot commented May 21, 2025 •

edited

Loading

jp-launch-control bot commented May 21, 2025 •

edited

Loading

andrewserong May 22, 2025 •

edited

Loading

andrewserong left a comment •

edited

Loading

talldan commented May 22, 2025 •

edited

Loading

talldan May 22, 2025 •

edited

Loading

talldan May 22, 2025 •

edited

Loading