Ignore "Disable visual editor" setting

[mcsf]

Fixes #5667

See wp-includes/class-wp-editor's behavior around self::$this_tinymce:

https://github.com/WordPress/WordPress/blob/176a28905041fd79c439946a4ba290a87db5991f/wp-includes/class-wp-editor.php#L360

How Has This Been Tested?

Follow steps in parent issue.

Types of changes

Bug fix.

Checklist:

• My code is tested.
• My code follows the WordPress code style.
• My code has proper inline documentation.

[mcsf]

Related: #4634

Should Gutenberg respect the rich_editing user option?

There's room for different interpretations. This PR is concerned with avoiding the total failure to load the editor described in #5667, but further steps may be:

• defaulting to Code view if rich_editing is false;
• defaulting to the legacy editor altogether.

The latter is much more aggressive. The decision hinges on the what we believe are the needs that a user expresses by disabling this setting. For instance, can it signal a stronger technical imperative (e.g., no JS execution desired?) than a simple UX choice? Is a11y a factor for those who disable it? If so, can we ensure that Gutenberg's Code view fulfills these needs, thereby eschewing the cop-out of redirecting to the classic editor?

[aduth]

Noting further improvements to considering the setting, I agree this is a good interim fix to the immediate issue 👍

[aduth]

In considering general removals as part of #13569, it does not appear to me that something like this made its way as part of a WordPress 5.0 merge, and is unclear whether it needed to.

[mcsf]

In considering general removals as part of #13569, it does not appear to me that something like this made its way as part of a WordPress 5.0 merge, and is unclear whether it needed to.

Yes, the custom filter doesn't seem to be in 5.0.

unclear whether it needed to.

Going back to the original issue, #5667, I now see that, in WP 5.0 with the Gutenberg plugin disabled, enabling user setting "disable visual editor" makes the block editor load in Code mode, with no option to switch to Visual. So it seems like the contract is honoured. I don't see any remaining action here; do you?

[aduth]

Looking at #12000 and #12151, it seems like the filter may be a lingering fragment from the awkwardness of the revert + reimplementation.

I don't see any remaining action here; do you?

It needs to be removed from Gutenberg, but it shouldn't require a core patch, no.