Forms: refactor actions for wp build dashboard #46635

simison · 2026-01-16T13:51:52Z

Follow up to FORMS-442

Proposed changes:

Move actions to their own file, and bring over previous functionality from older dashboard.

Other information:

Have you written new tests for your changes, if applicable?
Have you checked the E2E test CI results, and verified that your changes do not break them?
Have you tested your changes on WordPress.com, if applicable (if so, you'll see a generated comment below with a script to run)?

Jetpack product discussion

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

Testing instructions:

Use all actions from the rows (not the sidebar)
Pay attention to having filters set
Actions on 2nd page when the list "empties" due to action don't yet update as they should; we should adapt to use new navigate() from router

simison · 2026-01-16T13:52:40Z

projects/packages/forms/routes/responses/actions.tsx

+		page: targetPage,
+	};
+
+	setCurrentQuery( updatedQuery );


TODO: use navigate() from new router

github-actions · 2026-01-16T13:52:54Z

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 update/forms-wp-build-dashboard-actions branch.
To test on Simple, run the following command on your sandbox:

bin/jetpack-downloader test jetpack update/forms-wp-build-dashboard-actions

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 · 2026-01-16T13:53:11Z

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 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 🤖

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!

simison · 2026-01-16T13:53:22Z

projects/packages/forms/routes/responses/actions.tsx

+	const markAsSpamAction: Action< FormResponse > = {
+		id: 'mark-as-spam',
+		isPrimary: true,
+		icon: <Icon icon={ spam } />,


Not sure we need icons anymore with latest DataViews? TODO: check if bulk actions need them

The footer bulk actions used to need them, but not anymore.

Still used by multi actions on mobile

jp-launch-control · 2026-01-16T14:03:01Z

Code Coverage Summary

This PR did not change code coverage!

That could be good or bad, depending on the situation. Everything covered before, and still is? Great! Nothing was covered before? Not so great. 🤷

Full summary · PHP report · JS report

simison · 2026-01-19T19:38:26Z

TODO: bring over #46663 (done in 4a40787)

--------- Co-authored-by: Christian Gastrell <cgastrell@gmail.com>

Copilot

Pull request overview

This PR refactors form response actions from inline implementations in stage.tsx to a separate actions.tsx file to improve code organization for the WordPress build dashboard.

Changes:

Extracted action handlers from stage.tsx into a new actions.tsx file
Created a getActions() function that returns actions based on the current view
Removed unused imports and type dependencies from stage.tsx

Reviewed changes

Copilot reviewed 3 out of 3 changed files in this pull request and generated 11 comments.

File	Description
projects/packages/forms/routes/responses/stage.tsx	Removed inline action implementations and replaced with call to `getActions()` function; cleaned up unused imports
projects/packages/forms/routes/responses/actions.tsx	New file containing all action implementations with optimistic updates, error handling, and undo functionality
projects/packages/forms/changelog/update-forms-wp-build-dashboard-actions	Added changelog entry for the refactoring

Copilot · 2026-01-20T11:10:14Z

projects/packages/forms/routes/responses/stage.tsx

+				navigate,
+				searchParams,
+				view: params.view,
+				getItemId,


The parameter getItemId is passed to the getActions function but is not used in the implementation. The function parameter should be removed from both the call site and the function signature to avoid confusion.

Suggested change

getItemId,

Copilot · 2026-01-20T11:10:15Z

projects/packages/forms/routes/responses/actions.tsx

+	);
+
+	// Check for both rejected promises and fulfilled promises with undefined/invalid results
+	// const itemsUpdated: PromiseFulfilledResult< { id: number } >[] = [];


This commented-out code should be removed. The active implementation on line 250 is the correct one.

Suggested change

// const itemsUpdated: PromiseFulfilledResult< { id: number } >[] = [];

Copilot · 2026-01-20T11:10:15Z

projects/packages/forms/routes/responses/actions.tsx

+					let status = 'inbox';
+					if ( items[ 0 ]?.status === 'trash' ) {
+						status = 'trash';
+					}


The status detection logic assumes all items have the same status by checking only items[0]?.status. In bulk operations, items could potentially have different statuses. Consider checking if all items have the 'trash' status, or handling mixed statuses more robustly.

Suggested change

let status = 'inbox';

if ( items[ 0 ]?.status === 'trash' ) {

status = 'trash';

}

// Treat the view as "trash" only if all successfully updated items were in trash.

const allItemsFromTrash = itemsUpdated.every(

( item: FormResponse ) => item.status === 'trash'

);

const status = allItemsFromTrash ? 'trash' : 'inbox';

Copilot · 2026-01-20T11:10:16Z

projects/packages/forms/routes/responses/actions.tsx

+			items.forEach( () => {
+				updateCountsOptimistically( 'trash', 'deleted', 1, queryParams );
+			} );
+
+			const promises = await Promise.allSettled(
+				items.map( ( { id } ) =>
+					deleteEntityRecord( 'postType', 'feedback', id, { force: true }, { throwOnError: true } )
+				)
+			);
+
+			const itemsUpdated = promises.filter( ( { status } ) => status === 'fulfilled' );
+
+			// If there is at least one successful update, invalidate the cache for filters.
+			if ( itemsUpdated.length ) {
+				invalidateFilters();
+				invalidateCacheAndNavigate( registry, getCurrentQuery(), queryParams, 'trash' );
+			}
+
+			if ( itemsUpdated.length === items.length ) {
+				// Every request was successful.
+				const successMessage =
+					items.length === 1
+						? __( 'Response deleted permanently.', 'jetpack-forms' )
+						: sprintf(
+								/* translators: %d: the number of responses. */
+								_n(
+									'%d response deleted permanently.',
+									'%d responses deleted permanently.',
+									items.length,
+									'jetpack-forms'
+								),
+								items.length
+						  );
+
+				createSuccessNotice( successMessage, { type: 'snackbar', id: 'move-to-trash-action' } );
+
+				// Update the URL to remove references to deleted items.
+				// Parse the hash to extract just the query params (e.g., #/responses?r=1,2,3)
+				const hash = window.location.hash;
+				const hashQueryIndex = hash.indexOf( '?' );
+				const hashBase = hashQueryIndex > 0 ? hash.substring( 0, hashQueryIndex ) : hash;
+				const hashQuery = hashQueryIndex > 0 ? hash.substring( hashQueryIndex + 1 ) : '';
+
+				const hashParams = new URLSearchParams( hashQuery );
+				const currentSelection = hashParams.get( 'r' )?.split( ',' ) || [];
+				const deletedIds = items.map( ( { id } ) => id.toString() );
+				const newSelection = currentSelection.filter( id => ! deletedIds.includes( id ) );
+
+				if ( newSelection.length ) {
+					hashParams.set( 'r', newSelection.join( ',' ) );
+				} else {
+					hashParams.delete( 'r' );
+				}
+
+				const hashString = hashParams.toString();
+				window.location.hash = hashString ? `${ hashBase }?${ hashString }` : hashBase;
+
+				return;
+			}
+			// There is at least one failure.
+			const numberOfErrors = promises.filter( ( { status } ) => status === 'rejected' ).length;
+			const errorMessage = getGenericErrorMessage( numberOfErrors );
+
+			createErrorNotice( errorMessage, { type: 'snackbar' } );


The deleteAction performs optimistic count updates on line 920-922 for all items but does not revert these counts if some deletions fail. If some items fail to delete (checked on line 938), the counts will be incorrect. Consider reverting the optimistic count updates for failed items.

Copilot · 2026-01-20T11:10:16Z

projects/packages/forms/routes/responses/actions.tsx

+			if ( promises.every( ( { status } ) => status === 'fulfilled' ) ) {
+				// Every request was successful.
+				const successMessage =
+					items.length === 1
+						? __( 'Response marked as read.', 'jetpack-forms' )
+						: sprintf(
+								/* translators: %d: the number of responses. */
+								_n(
+									'%d response marked as read.',
+									'%d responses marked as read.',
+									items.length,
+									'jetpack-forms'
+								),
+								items.length
+						  );
+
+				createSuccessNotice( successMessage, {
+					type: 'snackbar',
+					id: 'mark-as-read-action',
+					actions: [
+						{
+							label: __( 'Undo', 'jetpack-forms' ),
+							onClick: () => {
+								markAsUnreadAction.callback( items, { registry } );
+							},
+						},
+					],
+				} );


The success notice is shown when all promises are fulfilled (line 1062), but the undo action on line 1085 attempts to undo all items, including those that may have failed. If some items failed to be marked as read, undoing all items would incorrectly attempt to mark the failed items as unread. Consider only including successfully updated items in the undo callback.

Copilot · 2026-01-20T11:10:17Z

projects/packages/forms/routes/responses/stage.tsx

+				queryParams,
+			} ),
+		[ navigate, searchParams, params.view, queryParams ]


The parameter queryParams is passed to the getActions function but is never used in the implementation. Each action obtains queryParams dynamically by calling getCountQueryParams(getCurrentQuery()) inside the callback. This unused parameter should be removed from both the call site and the function signature.

Suggested change

queryParams,

} ),

[ navigate, searchParams, params.view, queryParams ]

} ),

[ navigate, searchParams, params.view ]

Copilot · 2026-01-20T11:10:17Z

projects/packages/forms/routes/responses/actions.tsx

+				// If there is at least one successful update, invalidate the cache and navigate if needed
+				if ( itemsUpdated.length ) {
+					let status = 'inbox';
+					if ( items[ 0 ]?.status === 'trash' ) {


The status detection logic assumes all items have the same status by checking only items[0]?.status. In bulk operations, items could potentially have different statuses. Consider checking if all items have the 'trash' status, or handling mixed statuses more robustly.

Suggested change

if ( items[ 0 ]?.status === 'trash' ) {

const allItemsInTrash = itemsUpdated.every(

item => item.status === 'trash'

);

if ( allItemsInTrash ) {

There is no need, all items are guaranteed to have the same status, at least for now.

Copilot · 2026-01-20T11:10:17Z

projects/packages/forms/routes/responses/actions.tsx

+			const { getCurrentQuery } = registry.select( dashboardStore );
+
+			const queryParams = getCountQueryParams( getCurrentQuery() );
+			const previousStatus = items[ 0 ]?.status; // All items have the same status


The comment "All items have the same status" assumes a constraint that may not be enforced. While the isEligible check on line 764 ensures individual items are not 'trash', in a bulk operation items could still have different statuses (e.g., 'publish', 'spam', 'draft'). This could lead to incorrect undo behavior on line 869 where previousStatus is used for all items.

Suggested change

const previousStatus = items[ 0 ]?.status; // All items have the same status

const firstItemStatus = items[ 0 ]?.status;

const hasMixedStatus = items.some( item => item.status !== firstItemStatus );

if ( hasMixedStatus ) {

createErrorNotice(

__(

'Unable to move responses with different statuses to trash at once.',

'jetpack-forms'

),

{ type: 'snackbar' }

);

removeNotice( 'move-to-trash-action' );

return;

}

const previousStatus = firstItemStatus;

Copilot · 2026-01-20T11:10:18Z

projects/packages/forms/routes/responses/actions.tsx

+								items.length
+						  );
+
+				createSuccessNotice( successMessage, { type: 'snackbar', id: 'move-to-trash-action' } );


The notice ID 'move-to-trash-action' is used for the deleteAction, but this ID is already used by the moveToTrashAction. This could cause notice conflicts. Consider using a unique ID like 'delete-action' or 'delete-permanently-action'.

Suggested change

createSuccessNotice( successMessage, { type: 'snackbar', id: 'move-to-trash-action' } );

createSuccessNotice( successMessage, {

type: 'snackbar',

id: 'delete-permanently-action',

} );

Copilot · 2026-01-20T11:10:18Z

projects/packages/forms/routes/responses/actions.tsx

+			if ( promises.every( ( { status } ) => status === 'fulfilled' ) ) {
+				// Invalidate counts cache to ensure counts are refetched and stay accurate
+				invalidateCounts();
+				// Mark successfully updated records as invalid instead of removing from view
+				const updatedIds = items.map( item => item.id );


There's an inconsistency in when counts are invalidated. The markAsReadAction invalidates counts if any items succeed (line 1051), but markAsUnreadAction only invalidates counts if all items succeed (line 1165-1167). For consistency and correctness, both should invalidate counts whenever at least one item succeeds.

Suggested change

if ( promises.every( ( { status } ) => status === 'fulfilled' ) ) {

// Invalidate counts cache to ensure counts are refetched and stay accurate

invalidateCounts();

// Mark successfully updated records as invalid instead of removing from view

const updatedIds = items.map( item => item.id );

const updatedIds = promises.reduce( ( acc, { status }, index ) => {

if ( status === 'fulfilled' ) {

acc.push( items[ index ].id );

}

return acc;

}, [] );

if ( updatedIds.length > 0 ) {

// Invalidate counts cache to ensure counts are refetched and stay accurate

invalidateCounts();

// Mark successfully updated records as invalid instead of removing from view

simison added [Status] In Progress [Package] Forms labels Jan 16, 2026

simison commented Jan 16, 2026

View reviewed changes

github-actions bot added the [Feature] Contact Form label Jan 16, 2026

simison commented Jan 16, 2026

View reviewed changes

simison added 4 commits January 20, 2026 12:29

Move actions

05a8447

More complete actions in one file

b5e7f8e

More sensible approach, similar what we already had before

674fe99

changelog

b264cb3

simison force-pushed the update/forms-wp-build-dashboard-actions branch from 648f1ce to 9ee44c0 Compare January 20, 2026 10:29

Apply race condition fix in spam/not-spam actions from #46663

4a40787

--------- Co-authored-by: Christian Gastrell <cgastrell@gmail.com>

simison force-pushed the update/forms-wp-build-dashboard-actions branch from 9ee44c0 to 4a40787 Compare January 20, 2026 10:34

simison marked this pull request as ready for review January 20, 2026 11:03

Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings January 20, 2026 11:03

Copilot started reviewing on behalf of simison January 20, 2026 11:03 View session

Copilot AI reviewed Jan 20, 2026

View reviewed changes

-					let status = 'inbox';
-					if ( items[ 0 ]?.status === 'trash' ) {
-						status = 'trash';
-					}
+					// Treat the view as "trash" only if all successfully updated items were in trash.
+					const allItemsFromTrash = itemsUpdated.every(
+						( item: FormResponse ) => item.status === 'trash'
+					);
+					const status = allItemsFromTrash ? 'trash' : 'inbox';

-					if ( items[ 0 ]?.status === 'trash' ) {
+					const allItemsInTrash = itemsUpdated.every(
+						item => item.status === 'trash'
+					);
+					if ( allItemsInTrash ) {

-			const previousStatus = items[ 0 ]?.status; // All items have the same status
+			const firstItemStatus = items[ 0 ]?.status;
+			const hasMixedStatus = items.some( item => item.status !== firstItemStatus );
+			if ( hasMixedStatus ) {
+				createErrorNotice(
+					__(
+						'Unable to move responses with different statuses to trash at once.',
+						'jetpack-forms'
+					),
+					{ type: 'snackbar' }
+				);
+				removeNotice( 'move-to-trash-action' );
+				return;
+			}
+			const previousStatus = firstItemStatus;

Forms: refactor actions for wp build dashboard #46635

Are you sure you want to change the base?

Forms: refactor actions for wp build dashboard #46635

Uh oh!

Conversation

simison commented Jan 16, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Proposed changes:

Other information:

Jetpack product discussion

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

Testing instructions:

Uh oh!

simison Jan 16, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Jan 16, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Jan 16, 2026

Uh oh!

simison Jan 16, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

dhasilva Jan 16, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

simison Jan 20, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

jp-launch-control bot commented Jan 16, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Code Coverage Summary

Uh oh!

simison commented Jan 19, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull request overview

Reviewed changes

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Jan 20, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Jan 20, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Jan 20, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Jan 20, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Jan 20, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Jan 20, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Jan 20, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

dhasilva Jan 20, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Jan 20, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Jan 20, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Jan 20, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

simison commented Jan 16, 2026 •

edited

Loading

github-actions bot commented Jan 16, 2026 •

edited

Loading

jp-launch-control bot commented Jan 16, 2026 •

edited

Loading

simison commented Jan 19, 2026 •

edited

Loading