Posts tagged with "BlogMore"

In a post yesterday I finished off by saying:

At least I have, as of the time of writing, 1,380 tests to check that I've not broken anything when I do hand-clean the code. But, hmm, there's a question: can I actually trust those tests? It's not like I wrote them.

This was, of course, slightly tongue-in-cheek, because I did anticipate that the coverage might not be as useful as you'd hope an agent would deliver, and especially not at the level you'd personally aim for. On the other hand, I did expect it to have covered some of the fundamentals.

Being serious about wanting to hand-tidy some of the code as a way to start to get myself into the codebase¹, I set out to look at validate_path_template in content_path.py. My plan for how to tidy the code had overlap with how both Claude and Gemini had approached it, but also with a slightly different take. Nothing too radical, with the main difference being that I didn't want a baked-in default for which variables were required (to recap: both the agents saw the need to make this configurable rather than hard-coded into the body of the function, but both still kept a "backward-compatible" default that had a "mixing of concerns" code smell about it).

A function such as validate_path_template, which has a core use, is intended to be of fairly general utility, and which has a very obvious set of outputs given certain inputs, and which has zero side effects and no dependencies, seems like a really obvious candidate for a good set of unit tests. This in turn should have meant that I could modify the code with confidence, and experiment with confidence, knowing that said tests would let me know when I've screwed up.

I went looking for those tests so I could run them and them alone as I did this work.

Keep in mind, at this point, there are 1,380 tests that Copilot/Claude has written. That's a lot of tests. Of course there will be some direct tests of validate_path_template!

Spoiler: there weren't. No tests. At all. 1,380 tests inside the tests/ directory and not one that directly tested this utility function.

Now, sure, the function did have coverage. Before making any changes, the codebase itself had 94% coverage and content_path.py itself had 93% coverage. In fact, the only thing that wasn't covered was the code that raised an exception if a template looked broken.

This, for me anyway, is a good example of how and where coverage doesn't help me. Sure, other code that is being tested is calling this and if I change this code in ways that breaks that other code, I'll (probably) get to know about it. But if I want to properly understand the code (remember, I didn't write it, this is like getting to know someone else's² code) it's really helpful to see a set of dedicated tests for that specific function.

There were none.

For a moment, I'm going to give Copilot/Claude an out. When I started BlogMore, right at the very start, just as I was messing about to see what would happen, I gave no thought to tests. It was only after a short while that I asked it to a) create a set of tests for the current behaviour and b) made it clear that all new code had to have tests. It is possible, just possible, that the content of content_path.py fell through that crack. I don't know for sure without going back and looking through the PR history. I'm not that curious right now.

What is interesting though is that, in setting both Copilot/Claude and Gemini on the same problem with the same prompt, and having them both identify the same area for improvement, neither seemed to arrive at the conclusion that adding dedicated tests was something worth doing.

So the point here -- which isn't a revelation at all, but I think has been nicely illustrated by what I've seen happen -- is that an agent might indeed create a lot of tests, and perhaps even achieve pretty good coverage too, but it's no guarantee that they're going to be useful tests when you want to get your hands dirty in the codebase.

Turns out that some of those tests might still need writing by hand, like I did for this tidy-up of content_path.py. Well, I say, "by hand", I did take this as an opportunity to test being pretty lazy about typing out the tests I wanted.

PS: While looking through the tests and tidying some code related to the above, I came across this:

from blogmore.pagination_path import (
    DEFAULT_PAGE_1_PATH,
    DEFAULT_PAGE_N_PATH,
    # ...other imports removed for brevity...
)

class TestDefaults:
    """Tests for the default constant values."""

    def test_default_page_1_path(self) -> None:
        """The default page_1_path should be 'index.html'."""
        assert DEFAULT_PAGE_1_PATH == "index.html"

    def test_default_page_n_path(self) -> None:
        """The default page_n_path should be 'page/{page}.html'."""
        assert DEFAULT_PAGE_N_PATH == "page/{page}.html"

Brilliant. I guess line goes up has come to agent-written tests. But look! 1,380 tests guys!

As mentioned in the previous post, I've been having a play around with Copilot/Claude vs Gemini when it comes to getting the agents to seek out "bad" code and improve it. In that first post on the subject, I highlighted how both tools noticed some real duplication of effort, both addressed it in more or less the same way, and neither of them took the clean-up to its logical conclusion (or, at the very least, neither cleaned it up in a way that I feel is acceptable).

The comparison of the two PRs (Gemini vs Claude via Copilot) is going to be a slow and occasional read, and if I notice something that catches my interest, I'll note it on this blog.

Initially, I was looking at which files were touched by both. With Gemini it was:

• content_path.py
• generator.py
• pagination_path.py
• parser.py
• renderer.py
• utils.py

And with Copilot/Claude:

• markdown/first_paragraph.py
• comment_invite.py
• content_path.py
• feeds.py
• pagination_path.py
• parser.py
• post_path.py
• utils.py

On the surface, it looks like Claude might have done a better job of finding untidy issues in the code. Of course a proper read/assessment of the outcome is needed to decide which is "better"; not to mention the application of a lot of personal taste.

So, with the initial/surface impression that "Claude went deeper", I took a look at the first file they had in common: content_path.py. This is documented as a module related to:

Shared path-resolution utilities for content output paths.

This module provides the generic building blocks used by page_path and post_path. Each content type supplies its own allowed-variable set and variable dict; this module handles the common validation, substitution, and safety checks.

There's 3 functions in there:

• validate_path_template -- for validating a format string used in building a path.
• resolve_path -- given a template and some values to populate variables in the template, create a path.
• safe_output_path -- helper function for joining paths and ensuring they don't escape the output directory.

These seem like sensible functions to have in here, and I can imagine me writing a similar set in terms of the problem they seek to solve.

Both agents seemed to agree on what needed some work: validate_path_template. Both also seem to agree that building knowledge of which variable is required into the function itself isn't terribly flexible; I feel this is a reasonable review of the situation. However, the two agents seem to disagree on how this should be resolved.

Claude's take on this is that the function should grow an optional keyword argument called required_variable, which defaults to slug. It also adds an assert to test if the required variable exists in the allowed_variables (okay, I could quibble about this but given this is a code-check rather than a user-input check, eh, I can go with it). Finally it does the check using the new variable and also makes the error reporting a touch more generic too.

--- /Users/davep/content_path.py        2026-04-30 13:20:00.737955197 +0100
+++ src/blogmore/content_path.py        2026-04-30 13:20:04.560178727 +0100
@@ -17,13 +17,15 @@
     template: str,
     config_key: str,
     allowed_variables: frozenset[str],
-    item_name: str,
+    item_name: str = "",
+    *,
+    required_variable: str | None = "slug",
 ) -> None:
     """Validate a path format string for a content type.

     Checks that *template* is non-empty, well-formed, references only
-    variables from *allowed_variables*, and includes the mandatory
-    ``{slug}`` placeholder.
+    variables from *allowed_variables*, and (when *required_variable* is
+    not ``None``) includes the mandatory placeholder.

     Args:
         template: The path format string to validate.
@@ -33,11 +35,19 @@
             template.
         item_name: The human-readable name of the content type used in
             the uniqueness error message (e.g. ``"page"`` or ``"post"``).
+            Ignored when *required_variable* is ``None``.
+        required_variable: The variable name that must appear in the
+            template, or ``None`` if no variable is mandatory.  Defaults
+            to ``"slug"`` for backward compatibility.

     Raises:
         ValueError: If the template is empty, malformed, references an
-            unknown variable, or omits the ``{slug}`` placeholder.
+            unknown variable, or omits the required placeholder.
     """
+    assert required_variable is None or required_variable in allowed_variables, (
+        f"required_variable {required_variable!r} is not in allowed_variables"
+    )
+
     if not template:
         raise ValueError(f"{config_key} must not be empty")

@@ -61,9 +71,9 @@
             + f". Allowed variables are: {', '.join(sorted(allowed_variables))}"
         )

-    if "slug" not in field_names:
+    if required_variable is not None and required_variable not in field_names:
         raise ValueError(
-            f"{config_key} '{template}' must contain the {{slug}} variable so that "
+            f"{config_key} '{template}' must contain the {{{required_variable}}} variable so that "
             f"each {item_name} can be uniquely identified"
         )

Gemini, on the other hand, has a very similar idea but allows for the fact that the caller might want to specify multiple required variables. So in this case it adds required_variables (as a positional/keyword argument rather than a pure-keyword argument) and defaults it to a frozenset that contains "slug". The rest of the change is also about making the test for the required variables, and the reporting of the error, generic. It doesn't do anything about checking that the required variables are within the allowed variables.

--- /Users/davep/content_path.py        2026-04-30 13:20:00.737955197 +0100
+++ src/blogmore/content_path.py        2026-04-30 14:47:41.607748447 +0100
@@ -18,12 +18,13 @@
     config_key: str,
     allowed_variables: frozenset[str],
     item_name: str,
+    required_variables: frozenset[str] = frozenset({"slug"}),
 ) -> None:
     """Validate a path format string for a content type.

     Checks that *template* is non-empty, well-formed, references only
-    variables from *allowed_variables*, and includes the mandatory
-    ``{slug}`` placeholder.
+    variables from *allowed_variables*, and includes the
+    *required_variables*.

     Args:
         template: The path format string to validate.
@@ -33,10 +34,13 @@
             template.
         item_name: The human-readable name of the content type used in
             the uniqueness error message (e.g. ``"page"`` or ``"post"``).
+        required_variables: The set of variable names that MUST appear
+            in the template to ensure uniqueness. Defaults to
+            ``{"slug"}``.

     Raises:
         ValueError: If the template is empty, malformed, references an
-            unknown variable, or omits the ``{slug}`` placeholder.
+            unknown variable, or omits a required variable.
     """
     if not template:
         raise ValueError(f"{config_key} must not be empty")
@@ -61,10 +65,12 @@
             + f". Allowed variables are: {', '.join(sorted(allowed_variables))}"
         )

-    if "slug" not in field_names:
+    missing = required_variables - set(field_names)
+    if missing:
         raise ValueError(
-            f"{config_key} '{template}' must contain the {{slug}} variable so that "
-            f"each {item_name} can be uniquely identified"
+            f"{config_key} '{template}' must contain the "
+            + ", ".join(f"{{{v}}}" for v in sorted(missing))
+            + f" variable(s) so that each {item_name} can be uniquely identified"
         )

For the most part I think I prefer what Gemini is trying to do, although Claude's sanity check that the required variable is one of the possible variables makes sense. I kind of feel like both of them missed the point when it came to handling the fact that "slug" is required: given that validate_path is otherwise built to be pretty generic, I think I would have defaulted to nothing and simply left it up to the caller to be explicit that "slug" is required, because that matters in context of the caller. This feels like a pretty obvious case of a "business logic" vs "generic utility code" separation of concerns scenario.

As mentioned in passing in another post, it's interesting to see that neither of them noticed the opportunity to turn this:

unknown = set(field_names) - allowed_variables
if unknown:
    ...

into this:

if unknown := (set(field_names) - allowed_variables):
    ...

I know at least one person who would be happy about this fact.

So where does this leave me? At the moment I'm not inclined to merge either PR, but that's mainly because I want to carry on reading them and perhaps writing some more notes about what I encounter. What this does illustrate for me is something we know well enough anyway, but which I wanted to experiment with and see for myself: the initial implementation of any working code written by an agent seems optimised for that particular function or method, perhaps class if you're lucky. It will happily repeat the same code to solve similar problems, or perhaps even use very different approaches to solve the same problem. What it won't do well is recognise that this problem is solved elsewhere and so either use that other code by calling it, or perhaps modify it slightly to make it more generic and more applicable in more situations.

On the other hand, it has shown that with a bit of prompting (and keep in mind that the prompt that arrived at this comparison was really quite vague) it is possible to get an agent to "consider" the problem of duplication and boilerplate and to try and address that.

Having seen the two solutions on offer here, it's hard not to conclude that the best solution would be for me to take the PRs as flags marking places in the code that could be cleaned up, and do the tidy myself.

At least I have, as of the time of writing, 1,380 tests to check that I've not broken anything when I do hand-clean the code. But, hmm, there's a question: can I actually trust those tests? It's not like I wrote them.

Guess that's a whole other thing to worry about at some point...

While I don't, for a moment, think that the work on BlogMore is complete, I think it's fair to say that the rate of new feature additions has slowed down. Which is fine, there's only so much I need from a self-designed/directed static site generator; at a certain point there's a danger of adding features for the sake of it.

Around this point I think I want to start to pay proper attention to the code quality and maintainability of the ongoing experiment.

As I mentioned the other day, while working through this, I had noticed plenty of bad habits that Copilot (and in this case pretty much always Claude Sonnet 4.6) has. All were very human (obviously), but also the sort of thing you'd expect a human developer to educate themselves out of.

Yesterday evening, out of idle curiosity, I installed Gemini CLI because I wanted to see what would happen if I pointed it at the v2.18.0 codebase and asked it to look for things to clean up, and then what would happen if I did the same with Copilot CLI.

I've saved the results as a PR for what Gemini came up with and what Copilot came up with¹. I've not given them a proper read over yet, but while having a quick glance at them something leapt out at me: in the code before the request, there was this in utils.py:

def count_words(content: str) -> int:
    """Count the number of words in the given content.

    Strips common Markdown and HTML formatting before counting so that only
    prose words are included.  The same normalisation rules as
    :func:`calculate_reading_time` are applied.

    Args:
        content: The text content to analyse (may include Markdown/HTML).

    Returns:
        The number of words in the content.

    Examples:
        >>> count_words("Hello world")
        2
        >>> count_words("word " * 10)
        10
    """
    # Remove code blocks
    content = re.sub(r"```[\s\S]*?```", "", content)
    content = re.sub(r"`[^`]+`", "", content)

    # Remove markdown links but keep the text: [text](url) -> text
    content = re.sub(r"\[([^\]]+)\]\([^\)]+\)", r"\1", content)

    # Remove markdown images: ![alt](url) -> ""
    content = re.sub(r"!\[([^\]]*)\]\([^\)]+\)", "", content)

    # Remove HTML tags
    content = re.sub(r"<[^>]+>", "", content)

    # Remove markdown formatting characters
    content = re.sub(r"[*_~`#-]", " ", content)

    return len([word for word in content.split() if word])


def calculate_reading_time(content: str, words_per_minute: int = 200) -> int:
    """Calculate the estimated reading time for content in whole minutes.

    Uses the standard reading speed of 200 words per minute. Strips markdown
    formatting and counts only actual words to provide an accurate estimate.

    Args:
        content: The text content to analyze (can include markdown)
        words_per_minute: Average reading speed (default: 200 WPM)

    Returns:
        Estimated reading time in whole minutes (minimum 1 minute)

    Examples:
        >>> calculate_reading_time("Hello world")
        1
        >>> calculate_reading_time("word " * 400)
        2
    """
    # Remove code blocks (they typically take longer to read/understand)
    content = re.sub(r"```[\s\S]*?```", "", content)
    content = re.sub(r"`[^`]+`", "", content)

    # Remove markdown links but keep the text: [text](url) -> text
    content = re.sub(r"\[([^\]]+)\]\([^\)]+\)", r"\1", content)

    # Remove markdown images: ![alt](url) -> ""
    content = re.sub(r"!\[([^\]]*)\]\([^\)]+\)", "", content)

    # Remove HTML tags
    content = re.sub(r"<[^>]+>", "", content)

    # Remove markdown formatting characters
    content = re.sub(r"[*_~`#-]", " ", content)

    # Count words (split by whitespace and filter out empty strings)
    words = [word for word in content.split() if word]
    word_count = len(words)

    # Calculate minutes, rounding to the nearest minute with a minimum of 1
    minutes = max(1, round(word_count / words_per_minute))

    return minutes

I think this right here is a great example of why the code that these tools produce is generally kind of... meh. Let's just really appreciate for a moment the duplication of effort going on there. But it's even more fun. Look at the docstring² for count_words: it says right there that the "same normalisation rules as calculate_reading_time are applied". It "knows" it copied the work that went into calculate_reading_time too, but never once did it then "think" to pull the common code out and have both of the functions call on that helper function.

Back to the parallel invitations to refactor, having asked:

please do a review of this codebase and see if there is any scope for refactoring so there's less duplication

Both Gemini and Claude noticed this and did something about it. Gemini came up with a:

def _strip_formatting(content: str) -> str:

with all the regex-based-markdown-stripping code in there and then rewrote count_words and calculate_reading_time to call on that. The Copilot/Claude cleanup did something very similar:

def _strip_markdown_formatting(content: str) -> str:

So it's a good thing that both of them "noticed" this duplication of effort and cleaned it up. What I do find interesting though is what the result was. Stripping docstrings and comments for a moment, here's what I was left with, by Gemini, for count_words and calculate_reading_time:

def count_words(content: str) -> int:
    content = _strip_formatting(content)
    return len([word for word in content.split() if word])

def calculate_reading_time(content: str, words_per_minute: int = 200) -> int:
    content = _strip_formatting(content)
    words = [word for word in content.split() if word]
    word_count = len(words)
    minutes = max(1, round(word_count / words_per_minute))
    return minutes

and here's what Copilot/Claude came up with:

def count_words(content: str) -> int:
    return len([word for word in _strip_markdown_formatting(content).split() if word])

def calculate_reading_time(content: str, words_per_minute: int = 200) -> int:
    words = [word for word in _strip_markdown_formatting(content).split() if word]
    return max(1, round(len(words) / words_per_minute))

In both cases calculate_reading_time is still doing the work of counting words when count_words is right there to be called! Don't even get me started on how the Gemini version of calculate_reading_time is so obsessed with assigning values to variables that only get used once in the next line³. Were I reviewing these PRs (oh, wait, I am reviewing these PRs!), I'd request the latter function be turned into:

def calculate_reading_time(content: str, words_per_minute: int = 200) -> int:
    return max(1, round(count_words(content) / words_per_minute))

I would imagine that there's a lot more of this going on in the code, and under ideal conditions this sort of thing would not have made its way into the codebase in the first place. Part of the point of this experiment was to mostly get the agent to do its own thing, without me doing full-on reviews of every PR. Were I to use this sort of tool in a workplace, or even on a FOSS project that wasn't intended to be this exact experiment, I'd be far more inclined to carefully review the result and request changes.

Or, perhaps, hear me out... I have a third agent that I teach to be just like me and I get it do the work of reviewing the PRs for me. What could possibly go wrong?

After releasing the graph view yesterday I got to thinking that it might be nice if the "tooltips" for the nodes in the graph were a little richer. Since we already know how many posts are within a category, or have a specific tag, it makes sense that those counts should be shown; posts themselves have descriptions available and some even have cover images that could be turned into thumbnails. Why not make use of all of that?

So I've made use of all of that. As mentioned, categories and tags simply show the count of posts related to them:

Posts will show the title, date, description and the cover image if available:

I'll admit that the transparency is a little distracting -- this comes from the library being used for the graph -- but I kind of like it. I'm going to roll with it now and see how I feel about it as time goes on. It's not like I expect a reader to read the post in the tooltip, it's an invitation to click through and read the actual post.

Another small change is something I've been meaning to address for a while. While BlogMore supports a modified time for a post it never shows it or uses it in any meaningful way. So now I've updated the way the time of a post is displayed so that, if there is a modified time, it's also shown:

The final change came in as a request over on Mastodon. The wish being that there was an easy method, that didn't require the user spin out their own copy of a template just to do it, of changing the title of the backlinks section on a post from "References & Mentions" to something else. That seemed fair so I've introduced backlinks_title.

After adding the email comment invite facility to BlogMore it only made sense that I add some commands to blogmore.el to make it easier to edit the front matter that can help drive that feature.

So... I've released v4.3.0 of blogmore.el that adds two new commands:

• blogmore-toggle-invite-comments -- toggles the comment invitation property
• blogmore-invite-comments-to -- makes it easy to set, edit or remove the email address to use when making the invite

I've also added the two commands to the transient menu, using C-t for the former and C-a for the latter.

I did some more tinkering with BlogMore yesterday, adding two new features. The first is one I've been considering adding for a wee while now.

For a large part of the lifetime of this blog I used Disqus to provide a comments section on every post. It was, as you'd imagine for a small personal blog, a pretty quiet thing; I'd get the odd comment from time to time but it wasn't significant. This worked well for the longest time, until Disqus decided that they were going to force adverts into your pages if you were using the free tier. Now, I'm fine with paying for tools I use, but I wasn't using Disqus enough to make the cost worth it. I'm also not opposed to a bit of subtle advertising to help cover costs either.

What Disqus did wasn't subtle. It was far from subtle. It was a horror show of the worst kind of sleazy advertising you can imagine.

So I removed it and called it a day on comments.

After the work on BlogMore was well under way I did start thinking about this problem again. Given how BlogMore is constructed, anyone using it could override a template and include whatever they want; with this in mind I looked at static-site-friendly comment options but nothing really stood out. Every solution seemed to either heavily rely on a third party service (see above for possible problems), self-hosting such a service (spinning up hosts and web servers and databases and stuff is the antithesis of using a static site generator to get stuff done easily), or some hacky use of a social media platform or other discussion venue that would require the reader jump through hoops that really looks like "go away, I don't want to hear from you".

So I concluded that it just wasn't worth the effort and I've done nothing with it.

Meanwhile: on occasion I have had people just email me about a post. Good old email, like in the good old days of the Internet. I kind of liked that. In fact I really liked that. So over the weekend, after receiving just such an email the other day, I decided I'd add a feature to BlogMore that provided just that: an invitation to send an email at the end of every post.

The configuration file now has two new properties that support this. The first is invite_comments. This is a boolean value that simply turns on or off the feature. The second is invite_comments_to. This should be set to an email address that the reader will be invited to direct their comment or question or whatever.

I've made the latter a little smart, in that it's actually a template, so that you can control the email address used per-post. This could be great for filtering, etc. Examples could be:

• blog-comment@example.com
• blog-comment-{year}{month}{day}@example.com
• {author}+comment@example.com

And so on. You get the idea.

Further to this there's also post frontmatter properties of the same name. In this case the frontmatter setting always overrides the configuration file setting, for that single post. Also the invite_comments_to frontmatter setting isn't a template -- it's being set for a single post so that didn't seem necessary. The point of the frontmatter is it gives the flexibility to turn the invite off for an individual post (or indeed turn it on if the global setting is for it to be off).

The effect of all of this is that, if the invitation setting is on and if there is an email address available, this little box will appear at the bottom of a post:

When the reader clicks on the link it should open their MUA of choice and pre-fill the to address, and should also pre-fill the subject with the title of the post they're emailing from.

The second addition is prompted by the final paragraph in the post announcing the previous release of BlogMore:

At some point in the future it might be interesting to take this even further and produce a map of interconnected posts; for now though I think this is enough.

Apparently "some time in the future" was the following day; because that also got added while I was hacking on the sofa. There's a new --with-graph command line option, and with_graph configuration file setting, that adds a Graph page to the top "menu" of the blog. The result looks something like this:

Given the nature of the graph and that the viewer is naturally going to want to explore, it can be toggled into a "full screen" (well, "mostly most of the page") mode too:

The graph itself (built using force-graph) can be explored in the ways you'd reasonably expect, allowing zooming, panning around, dragging nodes around to get a better view of things, and so on.

If you click on any of the nodes the graph will show you everything that's linked to it:

and if you click the node again it will take you to the post, tag archive or category archive, depending on what it is you are clicking on.

So far I'm finding this is working really well as yet another method of discovering posts and themes, etc; it's already helped me find some "under-used" tags that deserved to be added to posts to better connect things. I suspect the feature will need refining over time, especially from a cosmetic point of view, but the result feels very usable as it stands.

BlogMore has had a new release, bumping the version to v2.16.0. There are two main changes in this update, both coming from a single idea: internal back-links.

Where it makes sense, I always try and link posts in this blog to other related posts, but I've never really had a sense of how interconnected things are. So, the first new thing I added was a with_backlinks configuration option. This is off by default, but when turned on, will add a list of any referring posts to the bottom of a post.

Like some of the work I did in the stats page, this feels like another interesting method of discovering posts and related subjects within a blog.

Once this work was done, it seemed to make sense to use the link-gathering code to then get a sense of which posts are most often linked to within a blog, and so a table of most-linked posts has been added to the stats page.

This particular table will only appear in the stats if with_backlinks is set to true.

At some point in the future it might be interesting to take this even further and produce a map of interconnected posts; for now though I think this is enough.

I've just made a small update to BlogMore. This fixes a minor cosmetic issue that's been bugging me for a while, but one that I kept forgetting to address. I noticed it again on a recent post. The issue is that if there are enough tags on a post that the collection of tags runs to a second line, there was no space between those lines.

Now, as of v2.15.0, there's a little bit of breathing room between those lines.

Much better.

Another wee update to blogmore.el, with a bump to v4.2.

After adding the webp helper command the other day, something about it has been bothering me. While the command is there as a simple helper if I want to change an individual image to webp -- so it's not intended to be a general-purpose tool -- it felt "wrong" that it did this one specific thing.

So I've changed it up and now, rather than being a command that changes an image's filename so that it has a webp extension, it now cycles through a small range of different image formats. Specifically it goes jpeg to png to gif to webp.

With this change in place I can position point on an image in the Markdown of a post and keep running the command to cycle the extension through the different options. I suppose at some point it might make sense to turn this into something that actually converts the image itself, but this is about going back and editing key posts when I change their image formats.

Another change is to the code that slugs the title of a post to make the Markdown file name. I ran into the motivating issue yesterday when posting some images on my photoblog. I had a title with an apostrophe in it, which meant that it went from something like Dave's Test (as the title) to dave-s-test (as the slug). While the slug doesn't really matter, this felt sort of messy; I would prefer that it came out as daves-test.

Given that wish, I modified blogmore-slug so that it strips ' and " before doing the conversion of non-alphanumeric characters to -. While doing this, for the sake of completeness, I did a simple attempt at removing accents from some characters too. So now the slugs come out a little tidier still.

(blogmore-slug "That's Café Ëmacs")
"thats-cafe-emacs"

The slug function has been the perfect use for an Emacs Lisp function I've never used before: thread-last. It's not like I've been avoiding it, it's just more a case of I've never quite felt it was worthwhile using until now. Thanks to it the body of blogmore-slug looks like this:

(thread-last
  title
  downcase
  ucs-normalize-NFKD-string
  (seq-filter (lambda (char) (or (< char #x300) (> char #x36F))))
  concat
  (replace-regexp-in-string (rx (+ (any "'\""))) "")
  (replace-regexp-in-string (rx (+ (not (any "0-9a-z")))) "-")
  (replace-regexp-in-string (rx (or (seq bol "-") (seq "-" eol))) ""))

rather than something like this:

(replace-regexp-in-string
 (rx (or (seq bol "-") (seq "-" eol))) ""
 (replace-regexp-in-string
  (rx (+ (not (any "0-9a-z")))) "-"
  (replace-regexp-in-string
   (rx (+ (any "'\""))) ""
   (concat
    (seq-filter
     (lambda (char)
       (or (< char #x300) (> char #x36F)))
     (ucs-normalize-NFKD-string
      (downcase title)))))))

Given that making the slug is very much a "pipeline" of functions, the former looks far more readable and feels more maintainable than the latter.

Following on from yesterday's experiment with webp I got to thinking that it might be handy to add a wee command to blogmore.el that can quickly swap an image's extension from whatever it is to webp.

So v4.1 has happened. The new command is simple enough, called blogmore-webpify-image-at-point; it just looks to see if there's a Markdown image on the current line and, if there is, replaces the file's extension with webp no matter what it was before.

If/when I decide to convert all the png files in the blog to webp I'll obviously use something very batch-oriented, but for now I'm still experimenting, so going back and quickly changing the odd image here and there is a nicely cautious approach.

I have, of course, added the command to the transient menu that is brought up by the blogmore command.

One other small change in v4.1 is that a newly created post is saved right away. This doesn't make a huge difference, but it does mean I start out with a saved post that will be seen by BlogMore when generating the site.