🐛 FIX: Porting regressions

[chrisjsewell]

Comparing #140 to #110 I noticed a few mistaken regressions

@hukkinj1 did you notice anything else?

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #141 (8d11243) into master (29a8d5e) will decrease coverage by 0.00%.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #141      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   96.51%   96.51%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files          72       72              
  Lines        3185     3183       -2     
==========================================
- Hits         3074     3072       -2     
  Misses        111      111              

Flag	Coverage Δ
pytests	96.51% <100.00%> (-0.01%)	⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
markdown_it/renderer.py	98.19% <ø> (-0.02%)	⬇️
markdown_it/rules_inline/strikethrough.py	97.40% <ø> (ø)
markdown_it/rules_inline/autolink.py	96.22% <100.00%> (-0.07%)	⬇️

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 29a8d5e...8d11243. Read the comment docs.

[hukkin]

Just what's in https://github.com/executablebooks/markdown-it-py/pull/110/files

So nothing major, just a missing newline and a trailing comma in a comment, besides what's already here.

[hukkin]

I didn't do any deeper analysis though 😄 Just merged master to my old branch and noticed some unmerged changes.

[chrisjsewell]

So nothing major, just a missing newline and a trailing comma in a comment, besides what's already here.

yep added cheers 👍