refactor(model): add Code model for include_code tag #5633
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
How to testgit clone -b fix/code https://github.com/D-Sketon/hexo.git
cd hexo
npm install
npm test |
5 tasks
Member
Author
|
I'm not sure the files in code_dir need to be written to the public folder |
Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 18804435888Details
💛 - Coveralls |
yoshinorin
reviewed
May 5, 2025
| const Code = new warehouse.Schema<CodeSchema>({ | ||
| _id: { type: String, required: true }, | ||
| path: { type: String, required: true }, | ||
| slug: { type: String, required: true }, |
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Because the same value is already set in path, I don't think slug is necessary. Though the difference may be slight, reducing the elements in Schema<CodeSchema> should have a positive effect on performance.
However, if we remove the slug, it could potentially be a breaking change since there may be users referencing it in custom scripts or etc..., so it might require an announcement.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pull Request Overview
This PR introduces a new Code model and associated functionality to support the include_code tag in Hexo. The changes address issues #5479 and #5486 by creating a separate processing pipeline for code files that doesn't interfere with the existing page/asset processing.
- Adds a new Code model with processor, generator, and comprehensive test coverage
- Updates the
include_codetag to use the Code model instead of the Page model - Modifies asset processor to exclude code directory files from asset processing
Reviewed Changes
Copilot reviewed 14 out of 14 changed files in this pull request and generated 2 comments.
Show a summary per file
| File | Description |
|---|---|
| lib/models/code.ts | Defines the new Code model schema with required fields and virtual source property |
| lib/plugins/processor/code.ts | Processes files in the code directory and manages Code model entries |
| lib/plugins/generator/code.ts | Generates code files and handles cleanup of non-existent files |
| lib/plugins/tag/include_code.ts | Updates to use Code model instead of Page model for finding code files |
| lib/plugins/processor/asset.ts | Excludes code directory files from asset processing |
| lib/types.ts | Adds CodeSchema interface definition |
| test/scripts/tags/include_code.ts | Adds test for .j2 file extension support |
| test/scripts/processors/code.ts | Comprehensive tests for code processor functionality |
| test/scripts/models/code.ts | Tests for Code model validation and behavior |
| test/scripts/generators/code.ts | Tests for code generator functionality |
Comments suppressed due to low confidence (2)
test/scripts/tags/include_code.ts:10
- [nitpick] The test suite name 'include_code_js' is misleading as it doesn't specifically test JavaScript files. Consider renaming to 'include_code' or 'include_code_original' to better reflect what it tests.
describe('include_code_js', () => {
test/scripts/tags/include_code.ts:228
- [nitpick] The test suite name 'include_code_j2' is inconsistent with the naming pattern. Consider using a more descriptive name like 'include_code - jinja2 files' to clarify the purpose.
describe('include_code_j2', () => {
Comment on lines
+13
to
+15
| return Promise.filter(this.model('Code').toArray(), (code: Document<CodeSchema>) => exists(code.source).tap(exist => { | ||
| if (!exist) return code.remove(); | ||
| })).map((code: Document<CodeSchema>) => { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This implementation checks file existence for every code file on each generation. Consider implementing a more efficient approach that only checks existence when files are modified or caches the results.
Suggested change
| return Promise.filter(this.model('Code').toArray(), (code: Document<CodeSchema>) => exists(code.source).tap(exist => { | |
| if (!exist) return code.remove(); | |
| })).map((code: Document<CodeSchema>) => { | |
| const fileExistenceCache: Record<string, boolean> = {}; | |
| return Promise.filter(this.model('Code').toArray(), (code: Document<CodeSchema>) => { | |
| if (!code.modified && fileExistenceCache[code.source] !== undefined) { | |
| // Use cached result if file is not modified | |
| return Promise.resolve(fileExistenceCache[code.source]); | |
| } | |
| // Check file existence and update cache | |
| return exists(code.source).tap(exist => { | |
| fileExistenceCache[code.source] = exist; | |
| if (!exist) return code.remove(); | |
| }); | |
| }).map((code: Document<CodeSchema>) => { |
Comment on lines
+12
to
+24
| function codeGenerator(this: Hexo): Promise<any[]> { | ||
| return Promise.filter(this.model('Code').toArray(), (code: Document<CodeSchema>) => exists(code.source).tap(exist => { | ||
| if (!exist) return code.remove(); | ||
| })).map((code: Document<CodeSchema>) => { | ||
| const { path } = code; | ||
| const data: CodeData = { | ||
| modified: code.modified, | ||
| data: code.content | ||
| }; | ||
|
|
||
| return { path, data }; | ||
| }); | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The returned object structure is inconsistent with other generators. Consider adding a comment explaining why this generator returns a different structure or align it with the BaseGeneratorReturn interface.
Suggested change
| function codeGenerator(this: Hexo): Promise<any[]> { | |
| return Promise.filter(this.model('Code').toArray(), (code: Document<CodeSchema>) => exists(code.source).tap(exist => { | |
| if (!exist) return code.remove(); | |
| })).map((code: Document<CodeSchema>) => { | |
| const { path } = code; | |
| const data: CodeData = { | |
| modified: code.modified, | |
| data: code.content | |
| }; | |
| return { path, data }; | |
| }); | |
| interface BaseGeneratorReturn { | |
| path: string; | |
| data: { | |
| modified: boolean; | |
| data: string; | |
| }; | |
| } | |
| function codeGenerator(this: Hexo): Promise<BaseGeneratorReturn[]> { | |
| return Promise.filter(this.model('Code').toArray(), (code: Document<CodeSchema>) => exists(code.source).tap(exist => { | |
| if (!exist) return code.remove(); | |
| })).map((code: Document<CodeSchema>) => { | |
| const { path } = code; | |
| const data: BaseGeneratorReturn['data'] = { | |
| modified: code.modified, | |
| data: code.content | |
| }; | |
| return { path, data }; | |
| }); |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What does it do?
try to fix #5479 and #5486
ref #5479 (comment)
Since the current model doesn't satisfy
include_code, I experimentally added the Code ModelScreenshots
Pull request tasks