fix(deps): update dependency rehype-slug to v6

[renovate]

This PR contains the following updates:

Package	Change	Age	Adoption	Passing	Confidence
rehype-slug	^5.1.0 -> ^6.0.0

---

Release Notes

rehypejs/rehype-slug (rehype-slug)

v6.0.0

Compare Source

Change

• 295ac26 Update @types/hast, unified, utilities, etc
  migrate: update too
• 12f76f8 Change to require Node.js 16
  migrate: update too
• 6855bcc Change to use exports
  migrate: don’t use private APIs

Full Changelog: rehypejs/rehype-slug@5.1.0...6.0.0

---

Configuration

📅 Schedule: Branch creation - "every weekend" in timezone Asia/Shanghai, Automerge - At any time (no schedule defined).

🚦 Automerge: Disabled by config. Please merge this manually once you are satisfied.

♻ Rebasing: Whenever PR becomes conflicted, or you tick the rebase/retry checkbox.

🔕 Ignore: Close this PR and you won't be reminded about this update again.

---

• If you want to rebase/retry this PR, check this box

---

This PR has been generated by Mend Renovate. View repository job log here.

[vercel]

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎

Name	Status	Preview	Comments	Updated (UTC)
blog	✅ Ready (Inspect)	Visit Preview	💬 Add feedback	Sep 1, 2023 7:55pm

[pull-request-quantifier-deprecated]

This PR has 2 quantified lines of changes. In general, a change size of upto 200 lines is ideal for the best PR experience!

---

Quantification details

Label      : Extra Small
Size       : +1 -1
Percentile : 0.8%

Total files changed: 2

Change summary by file extension:
.json : +1 -1
.lock : +0 -0

Change counts above are quantified counts, based on the PullRequestQuantifier customizations.

Why proper sizing of changes matters

Optimal pull request sizes drive a better predictable PR flow as they strike a
balance between between PR complexity and PR review overhead. PRs within the
optimal size (typical small, or medium sized PRs) mean:

• Fast and predictable releases to production:
  • Optimal size changes are more likely to be reviewed faster with fewer
    iterations.
  • Similarity in low PR complexity drives similar review times.
• Review quality is likely higher as complexity is lower:
  • Bugs are more likely to be detected.
  • Code inconsistencies are more likely to be detected.
• Knowledge sharing is improved within the participants:
  • Small portions can be assimilated better.
• Better engineering practices are exercised:
  • Solving big problems by dividing them in well contained, smaller problems.
  • Exercising separation of concerns within the code changes.

What can I do to optimize my changes

• Use the PullRequestQuantifier to quantify your PR accurately
  • Create a context profile for your repo using the context generator
  • Exclude files that are not necessary to be reviewed or do not increase the review complexity. Example: Autogenerated code, docs, project IDE setting files, binaries, etc. Check out the Excluded section from your prquantifier.yaml context profile.
  • Understand your typical change complexity, drive towards the desired complexity by adjusting the label mapping in your prquantifier.yaml context profile.
  • Only use the labels that matter to you, see context specification to customize your prquantifier.yaml context profile.
• Change your engineering behaviors
  • For PRs that fall outside of the desired spectrum, review the details and check if:
    • Your PR could be split in smaller, self-contained PRs instead
    • Your PR only solves one particular issue. (For example, don't refactor and code new features in the same PR).

How to interpret the change counts in git diff output

• One line was added: +1 -0
• One line was deleted: +0 -1
• One line was modified: +1 -1 (git diff doesn't know about modified, it will
  interpret that line like one addition plus one deletion)
• Change percentiles: Change characteristics (addition, deletion, modification)
  of this PR in relation to all other PRs within the repository.

---

Was this comment helpful? 👍  :ok_hand:  :thumbsdown: (Email)
Customize PullRequestQuantifier for this repository.

[github-actions]

Lighthouse Report

✨ https://blog-3ddtzt28d-sabertaz.vercel.app/

🚀 Vercel preview deployment
⚡ Lighthouse report

Category	Score
🟡 performance	77
🟢 accessibility	100
🟢 best-practices	100
🟢 seo	100
🟢 pwa	100

✨ https://blog-3ddtzt28d-sabertaz.vercel.app/posts

🚀 Vercel preview deployment
⚡ Lighthouse report

Category	Score
🟡 performance	80
🟢 accessibility	92
🟢 best-practices	100
🟢 seo	100
🟢 pwa	100

✨ https://blog-3ddtzt28d-sabertaz.vercel.app/tags

🚀 Vercel preview deployment
⚡ Lighthouse report

Category	Score
🟢 performance	97
🟢 accessibility	92
🟢 best-practices	100
🟢 seo	100
🟢 pwa	100

✨ https://blog-3ddtzt28d-sabertaz.vercel.app/books

🚀 Vercel preview deployment
⚡ Lighthouse report

Category	Score
🟢 performance	99
🟢 accessibility	92
🟢 best-practices	100
🟢 seo	100
🟢 pwa	100

✨ https://blog-3ddtzt28d-sabertaz.vercel.app/about

🚀 Vercel preview deployment
⚡ Lighthouse report

Category	Score
🟢 performance	98
🟢 accessibility	92
🟢 best-practices	100
🟢 seo	100
🟢 pwa	100

[socket-security]

Removed dependencies detected. Learn more about Socket for GitHub ↗︎

🚮 Removed packages: rehype-slug@5.1.0

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Patch and project coverage have no change.

Comparison is base (dc7d382) 98.49% compared to head (39d69b1) 98.49%.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #1142   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   98.49%   98.49%           
=======================================
  Files         176      176           
  Lines         866      866           
  Branches       86       86           
=======================================
  Hits          853      853           
  Misses         10       10           
  Partials        3        3           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.