
Maybe we should add super specific styles for that popup so it does not get broken by themes?
Another approach would be not to change anything if we want themes to be in full control, but maybe in this case we should add some custom rules to our Twenty Twenty compat CSS file?
https://github.com/Automattic/jetpack/blob/eefec2085242c33c490d0da3fda82d86d1f06bc7/modules/theme-tools/compat/twentytwenty.css
This is a tricky one and it happens with a few blocks, not just the Map block, as @scottsweb can attest to. It seems the issue stems from the fact that Twenty Twenty is very prescriptive when it comes to editor styles and this is bound to happen for any other theme that behaves the same way.
We can't control what a theme is doing and maintaining a compatibility file for each of them doesn't sound scalable, so I'd go for this:
Maybe we should add super specific styles for that popup so it does not get broken by themes?
After looking at the styles for the map and marker components, I'm assuming this means going from a "minimum amount of styles" approach to one where we try to override every single parameter on each selector?
This is one of those instances where the layout styles in the block are more important than what the theme, or editor is doing to customise them. The markers need to be exactly where they should be regardless of where the block lives. I think we can very opinionated on the markers when it comes to CSS layout.
Any layout related CSS that we deem important should probably be added to the block directly and we should be very specific with selectors in this instance too.
The colour clash is more tricky, if the theme/customizer was able to pass us some CSS variables we could probably look to respond to those choices a little better. This will need a bit more consideration.
This issue has been marked as stale. This happened because:
No further action is needed. But it's worth checking if this ticket has clear reproduction steps and it is still reproducible. Feel free to close this issue if you think it's not valid anymore — if you do, please add a brief explanation.