refactor(model): add Code model for include_code tag

[D-Sketon]

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 Model

Screenshots

Pull request tasks

• Add test cases for the changes.
• Passed the CI test.

[github-actions]

How to test

git clone -b fix/code https://github.com/D-Sketon/hexo.git
cd hexo
npm install
npm test

[D-Sketon]

I'm not sure the files in code_dir need to be written to the public folder

[coveralls]

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 16500331503

Details

• 100 of 100 (100.0%) changed or added relevant lines in 9 files are covered.
• No unchanged relevant lines lost coverage.
• Overall coverage increased (+0.004%) to 99.53%

---

Totals
Change from base Build 16494674898:	0.004%
Covered Lines:	9954
Relevant Lines:	10001

---

💛 - Coveralls

[yoshinorin]

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.

[Copilot]

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_code tag 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', () => {

[Copilot]

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>) => {

[Copilot]

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 };
	});