Issue Summary

      Environment

      Fabric editor

       

      Workaround

      Currently there is no known workaround for this behavior. A workaround will be added here when available

            [CONFCLOUD-65717] Plain text macros are not supported in the new editor

            With custom macro parameters editor we see the same - macro body does not get saved in new editor calling AP.confluence.saveMacro

            Alex Medved {ConfiForms} added a comment - With custom macro parameters editor we see the same - macro body does not get saved in new editor calling AP.confluence.saveMacro

            Peng Xiao added a comment - - edited

            ==Update======

            I guess I know the reason. Our macro has bodyType as none. My understanding is when bodyType is not. Body cannot be saved or retrieved (if it was saved before).

            @Kevin, can you please confirm this? If this is the case, it should be mentioned in the API document.

            ==Old comment==

            I know this has been closed. I am facing some related problems. In my test, `AP.confluence.getMacroBody(console.log)` prints `undefined` in all tested cases - page view, page editing (macro preview) and macro editor. We also have checked the storage view. It seems that the body is not saved when we call `AP.confluence.saveMacr({k:'v'}, 'some random body')`.

            Peng Xiao added a comment - - edited ==Update====== I guess I know the reason. Our macro has bodyType as none. My understanding is when bodyType is not. Body cannot be saved or retrieved (if it was saved before). @Kevin, can you please confirm this? If this is the case, it should be mentioned in the API document. ==Old comment== I know this has been closed. I am facing some related problems. In my test, `AP.confluence.getMacroBody(console.log)` prints `undefined` in all tested cases - page view, page editing (macro preview) and macro editor. We also have checked the storage view. It seems that the body is not saved when we call `AP.confluence.saveMacr({k:'v'}, 'some random body')`.

            The feature flag is now on. Enjoy!

            Kevin Dietz (Inactive) added a comment - The feature flag is now on. Enjoy!

            Stacy added a comment -

            Thanks @kdietz. Looking forward to the plain text macro feature flag being turned on.  Do you guys still plan to do today?  Approximate time? 

             

            Stacy added a comment - Thanks @kdietz. Looking forward to the plain text macro feature flag being turned on.  Do you guys still plan to do today?  Approximate time?   

            Thanks @ Kevin Dietz,

            Yes please enable that feature flag ASAP.

            Cheers,
            Brendan

            Brendan Patterson added a comment - Thanks @ Kevin Dietz, Yes please enable that feature flag ASAP. Cheers, Brendan

            Kevin Chase added a comment - - edited

            Thanks, Kevin, looking forward to the feature flag being widely released.

            Kevin Chase added a comment - - edited Thanks, Kevin, looking forward to the feature flag being widely released.

            Scott added a comment -

            Thanks, kdietz

            We are in favour of this change (enabling the feature flag for plain text macros).

            We agree that a partially working solution is better than no solution at all.

            From our perspective, there are no downsides to enabling this flag for everyone; only upsides.

            Scott added a comment - Thanks, kdietz We are in favour of this change (enabling the feature flag for plain text macros). We agree that a partially working solution is better than no solution at all. From our perspective, there are no downsides to enabling this flag for everyone; only upsides.

            As you all know,, we have multiple tickets in flight on all these things, which hopefully will get pushed to production soon.

            In the meantime, we're thinking about turning the plain text macro feature flag on - scheduled for Monday, August 19th. If anyone has any objections to this action, please let us know right away. Thanks!!

            Why turn on the feature flag now even though we know things aren't perfect with plain text macros and we have things in progress that have not yet been merged to production?

            Two main reasons:

            • Without the feature flag turned on, creating a plain text macro will result in an "ADF content not supported" error on the page, and this error will remain until the macro is deleted and re-added (even after the feature flag is turned on). We therefore need to choose between two alternatives: 1) Plain text macros guaranteed not to work, and 2) Plain text macros basically work but are a bit buggy and the user experience is not ideal. Between these two alternatives, #2 seems preferable to #1.
            • Evaluators - All new evaluators are getting automatically set to the new editor, thus they are unable to try out any plain text macros from our vendors. By turning the feature flag on, we can help our vendors win new customers that aren't currently able to evaluate these macros.

            Kevin Dietz (Inactive) added a comment - As you all know,, we have multiple tickets in flight on all these things, which hopefully will get pushed to production soon. In the meantime, we're thinking about turning the plain text macro feature flag on - scheduled for Monday, August 19th. If anyone has any objections to this action, please let us know right away. Thanks!! Why turn on the feature flag now even though we know things aren't perfect with plain text macros and we have things in progress that have not yet been merged to production? Two main reasons: Without the feature flag turned on, creating a plain text macro will result in an "ADF content not supported" error on the page, and this error will remain until the macro is deleted and re-added (even after the feature flag is turned on). We therefore need to choose between two alternatives: 1) Plain text macros guaranteed not to work, and 2) Plain text macros basically work but are a bit buggy and the user experience is not ideal. Between these two alternatives, #2 seems preferable to #1. Evaluators - All new evaluators are getting automatically set to the new editor, thus they are unable to try out any plain text macros from our vendors. By turning the feature flag on, we can help our vendors win new customers that aren't currently able to evaluate these macros.

            Hi scott1758096275, I'm currently working on the fix for the 404 issue.

            Nothing to my knowledge has been pushed to directly fix the above, but we have something coming in soon. I am glad to hear that it's currently working for you, and am trying to make the method more robust.

            Currently, we are working on a fix that will focus on issues with `AP.confluence.getMacroBody()` as well as `AP.confluence.getMacroData()`. We are aware that the API is returning undefined for `getMacroData` in many cases and will be addressing that specifically. We are in the testing stage looking at all known edge cases, and hope to roll out very soon.

            I will update here when the fix is finally out.

            Regards,

            Wyatt

             

            Wyatt Barnes (Inactive) added a comment - Hi scott1758096275 , I'm currently working on the fix for the 404 issue. Nothing to my knowledge has been pushed to directly fix the above, but we have something coming in soon. I am glad to hear that it's currently working for you, and am trying to make the method more robust. Currently, we are working on a fix that will focus on issues with `AP.confluence.getMacroBody()` as well as `AP.confluence.getMacroData()`. We are aware that the API is returning undefined for `getMacroData` in many cases and will be addressing that specifically. We are in the testing stage looking at all known edge cases, and hope to roll out very soon. I will update here when the fix is finally out. Regards, Wyatt  

            Scott added a comment -

            Hi azelenko,

            I hope we're not getting ahead of ourselves here, but.....it looks like the 404 issues may now be fixed?

            At least, in our dev Confluence instance, it seems that we are now able to successfully insert, edit & publish our macros using the new editor (and the feature switched version of the default Edit Macro dialog, that includes a <textarea> for editing the macro body).

            (We're using AP.confluence.getMacroBody() to fetch the macro body when rendering, by the way).

            Are you able to confirm? If so, this is great news.

             

            Unfortunately that is only half the job done: we are still unable to access macro parameters (which is critical for our apps to function correctly).  The AP.confluence.getMacroData() API is still returning undefined.

            Can you confirm if the getMacroData() API is still being investigated/fixed to work with plain-text macros?  (in particular, to provide access to macro parameters).

             

            It is certainly starting to feel like we might finally be nearing the end of what has now been (for us) 7 months of worry and frustration with the new editor rollout.  Hoping you can provide us with some good news.

            Kind regards,

            Scott

            Scott added a comment - Hi azelenko , I hope we're not getting ahead of ourselves here, but.....it looks like the 404 issues may now be fixed? At least, in our dev Confluence instance, it seems that we are now able to successfully insert, edit & publish our macros using the new editor (and the feature switched version of the default Edit Macro dialog, that includes a <textarea> for editing the macro body). (We're using AP.confluence.getMacroBody() to fetch the macro body when rendering, by the way). Are you able to confirm? If so, this is great news.   Unfortunately that is only half the job done: we are still unable to access macro parameters (which is critical for our apps to function correctly).  The AP.confluence.getMacroData() API is still returning undefined . Can you confirm if the getMacroData() API is still being investigated/fixed to work with plain-text macros?  (in particular, to provide access to macro parameters).   It is certainly starting to feel like we might finally be nearing the end of what has now been (for us) 7 months of worry and frustration with the new editor rollout.  Hoping you can provide us with some good news. Kind regards, Scott

              kihlberg Klaus (Inactive)
              kihlberg Klaus (Inactive)
              Affected customers:
              28 This affects my team
              Watchers:
              57 Start watching this issue

                Created:
                Updated:
                Resolved: