.414989552471815:001f0510c2f6ad34cacd3278f3cd829c_69eb2aaf286388925d723dad.69ec7c21a2b89670a7d71a75.69ec7c212ecaed5b58d9be71:Trae CN.T(2026/4/25 16:32:34)

[zilvya]

Marked version:

Markdown flavor: Markdown.pl|CommonMark|GitHub Flavored Markdown|n/a

Description

• Fixes #### (if fixing a known issue; otherwise, describe issue using the following format)

Contributor

• Test(s) exist to ensure functionality and minimize regression (if no tests added, list tests covering this PR); or,
• no tests required for this PR.
• If submitting new feature, it has been documented in the appropriate places.

Committer

In most cases, this should be a different person than the contributor.

• CI is green (no forced merge required).
• Squash and Merge PR following conventional commit guidelines.

[vercel]

@zilvya is attempting to deploy a commit to the MarkedJS Team on Vercel.

A member of the Team first needs to authorize it.

[gemini-code-assist]

Code Review

This pull request modifies the blockquote tokenization logic in src/Tokenizer.ts to skip elements containing only whitespace. Review feedback indicates that this change violates Markdown specification compliance for empty blockquotes and introduces a potential runtime crash due to recursive calls expecting a valid token object. It is recommended to revert this change to maintain stability and spec adherence.

[gemini-code-assist]

This change breaks standard Markdown behavior and introduces a potential runtime crash.

1. Spec Compliance: Empty blockquotes (e.g., a single > on a line) are valid in CommonMark and GFM. They should produce an empty <blockquote> element. By returning undefined, this code causes them to be misparsed as plain text or paragraphs.
2. Stability Issue: The blockquote method is called recursively at line 204 using a non-null assertion (!). If a nested blockquote is empty, this new check will cause this.blockquote() to return undefined, leading to a crash when accessing newToken.raw at line 207.

It is recommended to remove this check.

[UziTech]

This seems like a duplicate of #3957