Tag: Advanced Custom Fields

The Lesson of the Advanced Custom Fields Pro / Secure Custom Fields Debacle: Don’t GPL Your Paid Plugins

I’ve been using Advanced Custom Fields Pro since it was a solo project run by Elliot Condon. When you contacted ACF for support, you dealt with Elliot directly. I still think of it that way, even though several years ago, Elliot (after growing the business apparently beyond the scale he was interested in managing) sold ACF to WordPress plugin company Delicious Brains, which itself was later acquired by WP Engine.

Make no mistake: for me and countless other developers, ACF is the reason we can use WordPress as a general purpose Content Management System (CMS). It’s the reason I stopped building my own custom CakePHP-based CMS!

WordPress started as blogging software, and based on all available evidence, the core team, or really its BDFL, Matt Mullenweg, still sees it that way. I suspect it burns Matt up inside that a large contingent of us developers who have made WordPress the most popular CMS in the world only use WordPress because ACF makes it possible, and that we’re using WordPress specifically in ways he never envisioned it being used.

I doubt Matt’s ongoing war against WP Engine is that much about ACF. But it’s unmistakable that with WordPress.org’s (read: Matt’s) recent hostile takeover (don’t call it a fork, because this isn’t how forks work) of the free version of Advanced Custom Fields, renamed to “Secure Custom Fields,” and their even more recent actual fork of the paid Advanced Custom Fields Pro, also confusingly renamed to “Secure Custom Fields” and released for free in the Plugin Directory, WP.org/Matt sees ACF as, at least, a useful pawn in that war.

The thing that really confused me though was how could they get away with it? Advanced Custom Fields Pro is a paid plugin, distributed directly on its own website, to paying customers only.

In order to appear in the WordPress Plugin Directory, plugins are required to carry an open source license, with GPL v2 being the preferred choice. The free version of ACF in the Plugin Directory is, of course, GPL. But the Pro version…?

Strangely, after the news broke about this, I started seeing counterarguments that WP.org absolutely had the right to do it, because there wasn’t any other copyright in the ACF Pro code.

What?

So I checked for myself. Standard practice in WordPress plugins is for the license terms to be included in either the readme.txt file, the plugin’s main PHP file, or both. Here’s the top of the readme.txt file in the latest version of ACF Pro (6.3.11):

Well, there it is. ACF Pro is GPL v2. But just to make sure we didn’t miss anything, here’s what’s in the main PHP file:

I did a multi-file search in the plugin code for any instance of the word “copyright” and came up empty.

Well, that’s not good.

In case you’re not familiar with the GPL/open source, uhhh… yeah. This says in effect that WP.org absolutely has the legal right to fork and freely distribute not just the free version of Advanced Custom Fields, but the paid Pro version as well.

But just because it’s legal, doesn’t mean it’s ethical. And reading pages of the ACF site such as their terms for embedding ACF Pro in other plugins and themes, it is clear that their intentions, while generous, are more restrictive than the GPL.

I’m not really sure how, in all of these years, it never occurred to Elliot, or Delicious Brains, or WP Engine, that they needed to change the license terms for Advanced Custom Fields Pro. There’s nothing to stop them from doing that. Earlier versions of the plugin released under GPL will always be GPL. But newer versions could have switched to a more restrictive copyright, which would have (legally) prevented WP.org from forking ACF Pro.

As it happens, I now find myself somewhat in the position Elliot Condon was in back when I first started using Advanced Custom Fields Pro over a decade ago: a solo developer of a plugin that has both a free version in the Plugin Directory, and a paid Pro version.

My plugin is far more niche than ACF, so I doubt it will ever be valuable enough for a company like Delicious Brains to snap up, or that any company that would snap it up would itself become valuable enough to be acquired by a hosting behemoth like WP Engine.

I’m less valuable than a pawn. But that doesn’t mean my work isn’t of value to me. And that’s why, although the free version of ICS Calendar in the Plugin Directory — by necessity — carries a GPL license, the Pro version emphatically does not. (The latest version’s terms were reworded in the wake of this situation to be even more emphatic.)

Update: After posting this, I read the terms of the GPL more closely, and I think the issue may be that, because ACF Pro is coded in such a way that the free version’s code is deeply integrated with the Pro code, they may legally have no choice but to make ACF Pro GPL as well.

I believe it is within the terms of the GPL, and is fairly common practice among paid plugins (including mine), to put any GPL code libraries into a vendors (or similar) folder, and keep the proprietary code separate. (That’s how ICS Calendar Pro works.)

Since the GPL was written with full operating systems in mind, interpreting its wording in the context of something like a WordPress plugin, which doesn’t exist in compiled form and can’t function outside of a much larger system, can get a little fuzzy. What can or can’t be included in that vendors folder?

This leads to a broader consideration: Do I believe in the principles of open source? Or am I just using open source software opportunistically? Can I both support and contribute to open source and make money off of my software, even if it relies (partially) on other people’s open source projects to function?

I think it is naive to suggest anyone who is actually making a living working with open source software is not in that compromised position. Automattic (Matt’s company) relies on open source software just as much as WP Engine, and does far more to blur the lines between the free and commercial sides of the WordPress ecosystem than WP Engine does. (WordPress.com, anyone?)

There is no money in pure open source. That’s kind of the point. But even the most ardent anti-capitalist still needs money to survive in any modern society. And that money has to come from somewhere, whether that’s working for a for-profit company that benevolently “gives back” to the open source community by committing employee time to working on open source projects, or from indie developers releasing the basic versions of their software for free and selling paid “premium” add-ons to provide a source of income.

WordPress development in the Gutenberg era: Threading the needle of Block Theme development

As described in several of my recent posts here, I have been working for the past month or so on building my first “all-in” Block Theme for WordPress.

After nearly 4 years of adamantly resisting “Gutenberg” and the new Block Editor revolution — not because I disliked the block concept, but because I disagreed philosophically with the core team’s approach (to what constitutes a block, which types of blocks are important, and which technologies are used to manage the UI of the editing screen) — I am finally accepting that if I am to continue making a living primarily as a WordPress developer, I need to give up on my Classic Editor, Advanced Custom Fields “Flexible Content” approach, and embrace that the Block Editor is now The Way.

One of numerous challenges I’ve faced in this process (on top of the learning curve of a completely unfamiliar method of constructing themes, the dearth of adequate and up-to-date documentation, and the core team’s willingness to allow very unfinished versions of functionality to roll out in public WordPress releases) is figuring out the best way to approach some of the more complex design structures I am used to dealing with via ACF’s Flexible Content fields.

My biggest hurdle is recognizing that what I think of as a “block” is not what the WordPress core team thinks of as a “block”

Here I will admit this is a shortcoming of my own approach. I have been “opinionated” in my development approach (well, about everything, really), and created large-scale and complex “blocks” that, in Gutenberg/Block Editor terms, would really be “groups” or “block patterns,” not blocks. Gutenberg blocks are more granular.

Gutenberg blocks are also static, in that they generally do not interact with database content, or if they do, it is in very limited “bloggy” ways that don’t align with my use of WordPress as a general-purpose CMS.

So I’ve found myself falling back on ACF. I like its server-side approach. I’m more accustomed to dealing with PHP and MySQL. I use JavaScript (mainly jQuery) a fair bit for front-end interactive elements, but I don’t build complex functionality in JavaScript and I avoid AJAX if I can help it.

You can see I’m destined for a strained relationship with the Block Editor.

A concrete example: “Tiles”

One of the most idiosyncratic elements of my old ACF approach is the block I call “Tiles.” It’s a way of creating a set of small blurbs to link to other pages/posts. There are numerous options for appearance: number of tiles per row, relationship between the image and text in a tile, etc. And there are also numerous options for the content source: a specific page or post (with the title, featured image and excerpt automatically pulled in), a dynamic feed from the blog or a specific category (likewise with the info pulled in automatically, except this one auto-updates when there’s a new post), or a completely custom-built tile, where you manually select the image and enter the text and link.

Here are screenshots of the ACF-based editing tools for my Tiles block.

I tried recreating this entire setup as a new ACF-based Block field group. It worked, to be sure, but the complex ACF editing layout really did not feel right in the new Block Editor interface, either in the sidebar (eek) or in the main content area. It felt like a cop-out.

Then I considered creating a block pattern. I knew this would lack some of the benefits of my ACF-based Tiles block, but one in particular: the option to dynamically pull in the details of another page/post, rather than manually entering the text. But as a starting point, I decided to recreate the “custom” tile type.

That, also, worked. But it was finicky and didn’t apply well in a lot of different places. So I realized that instead of creating a Tiles block pattern, I needed to create a Tile block pattern. Just one tile. Instead of a monolithic block that was really a group, users would insert each individual tile into whatever larger structure they want (e.g. columns).

The end result was a block pattern that looked like this (screenshot instead of live code because, well, you really don’t want to use this):

I was really proud of myself for using the new “lock” feature to force the elements to stay in a particular order, but to allow the user to remove elements they don’t need, such as the image, lead-in text, or CTA button.

Still… I didn’t like it. And it didn’t allow for dynamic sources.

Along the way I also finally came to grasp another fundamental limitation of the Block Editor and Block Patterns. Since all of the parameters of the blocks are stored as HTML comments right in the post content, you (the theme developer) can’t update the design of a block pattern once it’s inserted into a page/post. The Block Editor isn’t dynamically inserting content into a template when the page is rendered. It’s making a one-off copy of the template and storing it right along with the content at the point when the content is inserted into the page/post.

This seems, to me, to be a fundamental flaw in the entire Gutenberg/Block Editor approach. It’s bad enough that if I were building it myself, I’d have stopped right there and taken a completely different direction. Maybe there’s a long-term plan to address this limitation, but for now it appears to be here to stay. Which led me back to ACF.

Threading the needle

And that was when I had my insight into the true nature of the problem. It was the fact that what I think of as a “block” is larger-scale than what the Block Editor treats as a block.

So I went back to my Tiles ACF field group, stripped out the repeater functionality and created a Tile ACF field group. Now you’re building one tile at a time, it has all of the previous benefits of ACF’s dynamic integration of content with template functionality, it seems to correctly fit the definition of a “block” in the WordPress sense, and you can still have a flexible presentation of multiple tiles in a group… just using Block Editor “groups” to achieve that.

I still have more to learn and questions to answer (followed by more questions to ask and then answer), but I feel like this was a major step forward in finding a way to merge the benefits of ACF with the… inevitability, I guess, of the Block Editor.

How did I not know about ClassicPress before now?

I’ve been using WordPress for 15 years, and have made it my go-to platform for all new websites I’ve built since 2014. So how is it that it took me three years to discover that ClassicPress exists, especially since its whole raison d’être is to keep the pre-Gutenberg dream of WordPress alive?

On one hand, being a solo developer — even before the pandemic — has always kept me a bit out-of-the-loop, especially since I don’t attend conferences. But I suspect the fact that I knew nothing of this also speaks negatively to the project’s future.

Is it gaining enough traction to continue to exist? Is it really a viable option to use on new professional projects in 2021?

Has the Gutenberg ship sailed? Well, yes, it has. But my issues with the current and future state of WordPress go beyond Gutenberg, to the nature of Automattic’s role in steering the ship, the greater vision of what WordPress is and should become, and… well… Matt Mullenweg’s personality. I feel like the future of WordPress is increasingly diverging from what I hoped to get out of it as a platform, and it’s clear that I’m not alone. That’s why ClassicPress exists.

There are a lot of things to like about ClassicPress, right out of the gate, besides the most obvious element, which is the absence of anything Gutenberg. It does away with a lot of the cutesy crap that’s rolled into WordPress by default, not least of which being the annoying proliferation of the word “howdy” and the beyond-pointless-to-actively-detrimental* plugin Hello Dolly.

As I look to my own future with WordPress and/or ClassicPress, I am primarily thinking about two things: 1) how/if I will continue to use it as the platform of choice for client projects, and 2) what the future will be for the plugins I have contributed to the WordPress community, and more specifically, my commercial plugin, ICS Calendar Pro.

I’ve been struggling with these matters for almost four years now, ever since Gutenberg emerged on the scene and went through its early phases of absolutely sucking, to its too-soon release as the default WordPress editor, to its current state as a mostly good but highly quirky and weirdly limited page building tool.

The timing was not great for me, as I had just recently gone “all-in” on 34 Blocks, my own block-based starter theme that I have been using to create all of my client sites since 2017. It started from a series of one-off client themes beginning around 2015 and is built around Advanced Custom Fields and its “Flexible Content” fields. It’s all much more in line with what “WordPress” has always meant to me. But as WordPress becomes Gutenberg, my vision of what this tool is and the reality of what it has become are increasingly at odds.

In those four years I’ve been bouncing around between several different ideas:

Suck it up and finally embrace Gutenberg development, learning a bunch of new stuff like React, in which I am not only wholly disinterested but with which I philosophically disagree?
Cling for dear life to Classic Editor and pray the gods of Automattic keep it on life support?
Switch to an entirely new platform, whether that might be another open source or commercial CMS, or a complete SaaS approach like Squarespace?
Get out of the web development business entirely?

So far, I’ve mostly stuck with “cling for dear life to Classic Editor” although I have been tempted a great many times to “get out entirely.” My enthusiasm for this field hasn’t been helped by things like the caustic toxicity of social media, the rise of absolutely godawful and not-at-all-intuitive-regardless-of-their-claims-to-such interface concepts (see: Google’s Material Design), and technical snafus like Digital Ocean’s entire subnet getting spam blacklisted and them doing absolutely zero to rectify the situation.

I’ve been taking baby steps towards making sure I’m not caught out when/if they pull the plug on Classic Editor. My 34 Blocks theme is to the point where it works adequately in the Gutenberg environment, and I’m even moving it towards a potential future where I would scrap my ACF Flexible Content blocks altogether, in favor of Gutenberg blocks.

But I’ve also made sure ICS Calendar is backward-compatible with WordPress 4.9, so it works with ClassicPress. And I’m still looking at other tools, now and again, in case I need to switch directions entirely.

It’s happened before. After the first half of my career consisted largely of building “bespoke” CMSes for corporate overlords, I went out on my own. From 2008 to 2014 I sunk thousands of hours into the development of a feature-rich, completely custom-built CMS based on the CakePHP framework, which I used to create about 10 client sites per year throughout that period.

But the writing was on the wall for that project when I found it impractical to upgrade the CakePHP core past version 1.3, which was incompatible with PHP 7. (CakePHP is currently up to version 4.1 and now requires a minimum of PHP 7.2, for an indication of just how doomed my old CMS project was.) By 2014 I gave up on it and switched to WordPress. Has the time come to move on again? If so, I feel like in some ways, switching to ClassicPress would be a step backwards, or at best a lateral move, and would not set me up well for the future.

Where does that leave me? I don’t know. There are options. But embracing Gutenberg and the future of WordPress is not at the top of the list. If anything, it’s never been lower.

* Why is Hello Dolly detrimental? The justification for its inclusion in the default WordPress build is that it is a demo for new developers to learn how to build a WordPress plugin. The problem is, it’s a terrible, no good, entirely wrong example of a plugin. It’s ancient and doesn’t conform to any modern WordPress coding standards, and it’s so rudimentary that there’s no useful structure to build on for people who want to create an actually useful plugin. So why is it still included? I don’t buy the “demo” argument. It’s still there because Matt wants it to be, and that in a nutshell is my problem with Automattic running the show. (I mean look, he even “cleverly” misspelled the company name so his own fucking name is embedded in it. That annoys me every damn time I see it… almost as much as “howdy.”)

Using The SEO Framework with Advanced Custom Fields

I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that I am not the only WordPress developer who in recent days (in the wake of their obnoxious Black Friday dashboard ad) has switched allegiance from Yoast to another SEO plugin, and that many of those who find themselves in a similar boat (to mix metaphors) have switched to The SEO Framework.

I’ve only been using it for a couple of days, but I already love it. It does all of the things I actually used Yoast for, without any of the other stuff I did not use it for. I mean honestly, maybe readability scores and “cornerstone content” do provide an SEO boost, but I barely understand how to use these tools, so good luck explaining them to my clients in a meaningful way. I suppose they’re more of a tool for full-time SEO consultants who need to pad out their billable hours. (Sorry not sorry. My opinion on the business of SEO hasn’t changed all that much since 2011.)

It wasn’t until the Black Friday ad that I really admitted to myself how much I don’t like Yoast. It does a lot of important things, and does them very well. But it’s obnoxious as hell about it. Pushing features you don’t really want or need into every page of the WordPress admin, and plastering its own over-designed admin screens with tons of garish ads promoting its “premium” features.

Yuck.

The SEO Framework encapsulates all of the key features I liked about Yoast into a single configuration screen, which kindly adheres to the standard WordPress admin UI design language instead of infusing its own brand style into every button and metabox border. It’s refreshingly boring to look at. And it just has the stuff I actually use, like title and description, OpenGraph tags, sitemap XML, the basic elements of SEO that unequivocally matter and can be a pain to build and maintain on your own.

But enough about all of its great features. There’s one key thing it lacks: support for Advanced Custom Fields. My standard “modular design” theme relies almost entirely on ACF’s Flexible Content fields to work its page layout magic, and with all of the page content stored in custom fields instead of post_content, there’s nothing for The SEO Framework to latch onto to auto-generate meta descriptions.

Fortunately, the developer has built in some hooks to allow you to customize the meta description output.

Here’s a barebones starting point:

function my_seo_framework_description($description, $args) {
  if (empty($description)) {
    $description = ''; // Add your own logic here!
  }
  return $description;
}
add_filter('the_seo_framework_custom_field_description', 'my_seo_framework_description', 10, 2);
add_filter('the_seo_framework_generated_description', 'my_seo_framework_description', 10, 2);
add_filter('the_seo_framework_fetched_description_excerpt', 'my_seo_framework_description', 10, 2);

As the developer notes, it’s very important for SEO not to just output the same static description text on every page. You need to have a function of your own that will read your ACF field content and generate something meaningful here.

Fortunately in my case, I had already done that, for generating custom excerpts from ACF content, so I was able to just stick a call to that function into the // Add your own logic here! line. You’ll need to customize your function to suit your specific content structure, but here’s the post that I used as a starting point for my function.

Have fun!

WordPress Dev Tip: The Events Calendar 4.6.4 breaks Advanced Custom Fields Select2 fields… here’s a fix

Suddenly, Advanced Custom Fields that use Select2 (any custom select dropdown, such as on Post Object fields) were broken. Testing plugins one-by-one narrowed it down to The Events Calendar. Apparently version 4.6.4 is loading Select2 and overriding ACF's own loading of Select2, breaking custom fields that use it.

I found a simple fix in the WordPress Support Forums. Then I encapsulated that fix in a barebones plugin you can download here.