fix: handle Markdown indented code blocks in rule 17

[LarytheLord]

Summary

Fix Rule 17 to also detect long Markdown indented code blocks (4-space style), not just fenced/directive variants.

Changes

• Add an indented-Markdown pattern to:
  • 017a-Suggest-code-over-25-lines
  • 017b-Warn-code-over-35-lines
• Add dedicated regression cases in tests/data/manifest.yml:
  • long-code-suggestion-md-indented
  • long-code-warning-md-indented
• Follow-up fixture fix for trailing newline handling in these new cases.

Validation

• cd tests && make run
• Result: 51 passed

Partially addresses #176 (BlockCode coverage); fenced code blocks that are indented in Markdown are still out of scope for this PR.

[LarytheLord]

Pushed follow-up commit f23dd45 to fix the failing Pytest (Vale rules) job.

Root cause was fixture/expectation mismatch for Markdown indented code blocks after the parser change: actual Vale match includes a trailing newline, while the two md-indented expected triggers were using stripped multiline blocks.

Fix:

• updated only these two fixture trigger blocks in tests/data/manifest.yml to preserve the trailing newline:
  • long-code-suggestion-md-indented
  • long-code-warning-md-indented

Local validation:

• cd tests && make run
• result: 51 passed

[SecondSkoll]

Thanks for the PR! I don't have a lot of time to look at this in detail today. One thing is that this won't actually fully close #176 - mostly because I wasn't specific enough in the description - but indenting a ``` delimited codeblock would not be solved by this.

However, this does look like a solid solution for BlockCode syntax at a glance.

[LarytheLord]

Thanks for the review and totally agreed.

You’re right this does not fully close #176 as currently written; I’ve updated the PR description to mark this as a partial fix scoped to BlockCode (indented code block syntax), and explicitly called out the remaining fenced+indented Markdown case as out of scope here.

If you want, I can open a focused follow-up PR for that remaining case after this one.

[SecondSkoll]

If you are interested that would be fantastic, but I don't think it would be a common use case - so I view it as relatively low priority at the moment :)

[LarytheLord]

That makes sense, thanks. I’ll keep this PR scoped as-is and won’t open the follow-up unless priorities change.