[TwigComponent] Nested component doesn't work with html syntax

[Jupi007]

Let's assume two component foo and bar, which both define a content block.

Using the normal syntax, it works as expected:

{% component foo %}
  {% block content %}
    {% component bar %}
      {% block content %}
        {# ... #}
      {% endblock %}
    {% endcomponent %}
  {% endblock %}
{% endcomponent %}

But using the html syntax:

<twig:foo>
  <twig:block name="content">
    <twig:bar>
      <twig:block name="content">
        {# ... #}
      </twig:block>
    </twig:bar>
  </twig:block>
</twig:foo>

This throw a SyntaxError:

An exception has been thrown during the compilation of a template ("Expected closing tag '</twig:block>' for block 'content' at line 13").

---

Btw, simply write it like this doesn't work too:

<twig:foo>
  <twig:bar>
    {# ... #}
  </twig:bar>
</twig:foo>

This one throw:

A template that extends another one cannot include content outside Twig blocks. Did you forget to put the content inside a {% block %} tag?

But maybe it is how it is expected to work?

[weaverryan]

Other syntaxes look valid to me. That 2nd error is particularly odd. Are you are the error isn’t being caused by something else in your template?

@WebMamba would you be able to check these? I have a test for embedded components (the 2nd example) so I’m surprised that’s not working.

[Jupi007]

Other syntaxes look valid to me. That 2nd error is particularly odd. Are you are the error isn’t being caused by something else in your template?

I've just tried this in an empty template, with just the content of the snippets I pasted above here, and both get the exact same errors.

[yguedidi]

Here it seems you're in a component usage context, and if I understood correctly the new syntax, when you use a component, it should be without redefining the content block:

<twig:foo>
  <twig:bar>
    {# ... #}
  </twig:bar>
</twig:foo>

content block is to set which part of the component is the default part in the component definition template

[Jupi007]

Here it seems you're in a component usage context, and if I understood correctly the new syntax, when you use a component, it should be without redefining the content block

It is also that I understood :)

But I also tested with a different block name:

<twig:foo>
  <twig:block name="foo">
    <twig:bar>
      <twig:block name="bar">
        {# ... #}
      </twig:block>
    </twig:bar>
  </twig:block>
</twig:foo>

And the same exception is thrown.

[yguedidi]

@Jupi007 then when using another block name, in a usage context, it means you're overriding a block from the component definition, so in the template of the foo component there must be a block named "foo"

[Jupi007]

@yguedidi Do you mean like this?

{# templates/index.html.twig #}

<twig:foo>
  <twig:block name="foo">
   {# ... #}
  </twig:block>
</twig:foo>

{# templates/components/foo.html.twig #}

{% block foo %}
{% endblock %}

If so, I did it this way :)
And it throw an exception if you nest components, like I indicated upper.

[yguedidi]

Yes this way, so it seems there is indeed something weird 😅

[weaverryan]

Ultimately, the new <twig:Component syntax is must “mapped” internally to the {% component syntax. So that makes life easy: if something works with {% component, then it should work with the new syntax and behave the same way. So yes - definitely a legit bug or two here :).

[weaverryan]

Should be fixed now - if you find any more edge cases, please let us know!

[Jupi007]

Thanks a lot!

I just tested it and I think that a part of the problem is still present.

Now this works as expected:

<twig:foo>
  <twig:block name="content">
    <twig:bar>
      {# ... #}
    </twig:bar>
  </twig:block>
</twig:foo>

But this one still throw an exception:

<twig:foo>
  <twig:bar>
    {# ... #}
  </twig:bar>
</twig:foo>

A template that extends another one cannot include content outside Twig blocks. Did you forget to put the content inside a {% block %} tag?

As far as I understand, the content block should be omitted in html-like syntax, isn't it?

[WebMamba]

Ok good catch! It's an other issue I am working for a patch for it as well 👍Thanks for the report! 😁