[theme-reviewers] Something we need to check for 3.4 appearance -> background

Edward Caissie edward.caissie at gmail.com
Tue Jun 12 19:30:21 UTC 2012

On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 7:53 AM, Otto <otto at ottodestruct.com> wrote:

> That's too vague for me to understand. It works as it's intended to
> work, as far as I can tell.
> What specifically is the trouble?

Around 3.4-alpha it appeared to be working very similar to 3.3.2 ...
somewhere around 3.4-RC2(?) it stopped "working".

Now with 3.4-RC3 it is in a state that is workable and explainable to the
end-user why their Child-Theme may break and how to fix it without having
to have new code added to their Child-Theme.

I still do not particularly agree with the verbiage of the buttons I am
seeing depending on the options that have been or not been selected.

As it is, here is the current use-case/scenario:

1. Parent-Theme is loaded and uses custom-backgrounds with default
arguments set for color and image
1a. No CSS in the body tag is used for background image or color

2. Child-Theme is loaded with no custom-background functionality added, it
inherits the Parent-Theme's
2a. The Child-Theme *does* have body tag properties for background image
and color

3. After updating Parent-Theme the Child-Theme background image goes away,
but the Child-Theme background color remains.

4. Go to Appearance | Background and click on "Remove Background Image"

5. Child-Theme now reverts back to what the end-user expects: their
background image being displayed just like it did before upgrading the

NB: At step 4 you may notice that there are no settings that actually show
anything besides what their defaults would be without custom-background
functionality being implemented. Thus the verbiage of "Remove Background
Image" is rather misleading ... as best I can figure clicking the button it
is removing the setting that dictates using the Parent-Theme background but
it cannot display it as the path does not resolve(?). Of course I could be
completely wrong on that notion as I have not code traced it to see if that
is the case, just surmising it may be.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wordpress.org/pipermail/theme-reviewers/attachments/20120612/5311faa6/attachment.htm>

More information about the theme-reviewers mailing list