images: Add debug logging to webp encoding/decoding

[Divyanshupandey007]

This PR adds debug-level logging to the WebP image processing pipeline to help diagnose potential hangs or slowness during image transformation.

Changes made:

• Added a logg.LevelLogger to the Codec struct in resources/images/codec.go.
• Updated NewImageProcessor to accept and pass the debug logger down to the codec.
• Injected imagesDebugl into the Image Processor inside resources/resource_spec.go.
• Added d.logger.Logf statements before WebP encoding and decoding actions.

Testing:
Verified locally using a test site with {{ $webp := .Resize "200x webp" }}. When running hugo --logLevel debug, the expected output now successfully appears:
DEBUG webp: encoding image to WebP with opts: map[...]

Fixes #14337

[gemini-code-assist]

Using Gemini Code Assist

The full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips.

Invoking Gemini

You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either /gemini <command> or @gemini-code-assist <command>. Below is a summary of the supported commands on the current page.

Feature	Command	Description

Customization

To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a .gemini/ folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be found here.

Limitations & Feedback

Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for Github and other Google products, sign up here.

[CLAassistant]

All committers have signed the CLA.

[github-actions]

AI Detection Analysis 🔍

Confidence Score: 25%

Reasoning: The pull request description and code changes appear to be written with a clear understanding of the system architecture, and they demonstrate awareness of both technical details (e.g., the structure of a logger, maintaining proper method signatures) and testing processes. The explanations use domain-specific terminology appropriately and offer rationale for each change, a sign of thoughtful human authorship. The structure of the PR is well-formed and follows typical open source communication conventions. While AI could conceivably generate this, the combination of domain-specific edits and consistency in debugging context leans toward a human author.

Key Indicators:

• Use of concrete identifiers and realistic Go code (e.g., newCodec, logg.LevelLogger, d.logger.Logf), with contextually appropriate log messages.
• Testing rationale is aligned with usage patterns in Go-based projects (e.g., hugo --logLevel debug, referencing {{ $webp := .Resize ... }}).
• Explanation ties the individual changes together and connects them to a broader debugging goal.
• The voice is technical but natural, without signs of redundancy, generic phrasing, or hallucinations often associated with AI-generated content.

Overall, this looks like a well-structured human-authored pull request.

✅ No strong indicators of AI generation detected