fix(markdown): don’t generate mdast html nodes

[remcohaszing]

Changes

html nodes from mdast are converted to raw hast nodes. These nodes are then not processed by proper rehype plugins. Typically if a remark plugin generates html nodes, this indicates it should have actually been a rehype plugin.

This changes the remark plugins that generate html nodes into rehype nodes. These were remarkPrism and remarkShiki.

Testing

pnpm build -- --force
pnpm test

No tests were added, because it mostly changes internals.

Docs

This affects a user’s behaviour by adding better compatibility with some existing remark / rehype plugins. E.g. rehype-mermaid will work. I don’t think a docs update is needed.

Closes #9909

[changeset-bot]

🦋 Changeset detected

Latest commit: 06bd1e3

The changes in this PR will be included in the next version bump.

Not sure what this means? Click here to learn what changesets are.

Click here if you're a maintainer who wants to add another changeset to this PR

[bluwy]

The code looks good to me, but isn't this a breaking change as the order is changed, and code is transformed differently? Or do you foresee that it shouldn't break much?

[remcohaszing]

I see why this can be considered a breaking change. On the other hand, it only really breaks if people rely on the bad AST that Astro produced earlier. In that case I would say it breaks people’s workarounds.

I don’t expect this to break people’s code, but I’m not sure how people are using this. I do know this fixes compatibility with rehype-mermaid and potentially other rehype plugins.

[Princesseuh]

I have the same concerns as Bjorn, but I do think it's okay!

[ematipico]

As middle ground, we could release these changes as minor and add a warning for a possible breaking change if integrations were relying on broken AST. What do you think @bluwy and @Princesseuh ?

[Princesseuh]

As middle ground, we could release these changes as minor and add a warning for a possible breaking change if integrations were relying on broken AST.

Fine with me! We'll mention it in the article.

[remcohaszing]

Don't forget about this comment: #10104 (comment). Whatever you choose is fine, just make it explicit :)

[bluwy]

Marking as minor is fine by me too 👍 Let's release it in 4.5 then.

[OliverSpeir]

Having both before user rehype plugins I think is important otherwise great change I know rehype mermaid has been requested

[ematipico]

It would be great if we could craft a good changelog explaining the possible breaking change. @remcohaszing would you mind doing that? cc @bluwy might help, he has more context on the matter.

[remcohaszing]

Do you mean that as part of the changeset?

[ematipico]

Yeah sorry. That's what I meant

[bluwy]

Thanks for following up with the requested changes! Appreciate the refactor and cleanup.

[sarah11918]

Thank you for this contribution @remcohaszing -- seems like this will ensure some greater compatibility, and we at Astro love our code samples!

I've made some small suggestions below because this is not only a change, but potentially a breaking change, and this changeset message is a great way to call attention to that and provide the most warning, guidance and support to people who might need to make a change because of this.

See what you think and correct to be accurate if I've lost any of the particular meaning by editing! 🙌

[sarah11918]

Docs is approving the changeset, as long as everyone else is happy with it!