docs: update docs #22812
docs: update docs #22812
Conversation
Signed-off-by: ChengenH <[email protected]>
ChengenH
requested review from
cool-develope,
kocubinski and
a team
as code owners
📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughThe changes in this pull request involve updates to several files, primarily enhancing test coverage and documentation clarity. In Changes
Possibly related PRs
Suggested labels
Suggested reviewers
Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
Documentation and Community
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (2)
types/context.go (2)
Line range hint
39-62: Consider adding deprecation timelineSeveral fields are marked as deprecated with clear alternatives provided. However, it would be helpful to specify when these fields will be removed (except for those already marked with "will be removed after 0.52").
Line range hint
263-263: Clarify or remove ambiguous TODO commentThe TODO comment "remove???" lacks context and clarity. Please either:
- Add more context about why this method might need removal
- Remove the TODO if it's no longer relevant
Would you like me to help track this by creating a GitHub issue?
📜 Review details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yml
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (3)
server/util_test.go(1 hunks)store/internal/proofs/create.go(2 hunks)types/context.go(1 hunks)
✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (1)
- store/internal/proofs/create.go
🧰 Additional context used
📓 Path-based instructions (2)
server/util_test.go (2)
Pattern **/*.go: Review the Golang code for conformity with the Uber Golang style guide, highlighting any deviations.
Pattern **/*_test.go: "Assess the unit test code assessing sufficient code coverage for the changes associated in the pull request"
types/context.go (1)
Pattern **/*.go: Review the Golang code for conformity with the Uber Golang style guide, highlighting any deviations.
🔇 Additional comments (2)
types/context.go (1)
33-38: LGTM: Clear and well-structured documentation
The comment style change improves readability while maintaining comprehensive documentation of the Context struct's purpose and implementation details.
server/util_test.go (1)
263-265: LGTM: Clear test documentation
The comment style change improves readability while maintaining clear explanation of the test's purpose and structure.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (1)
types/context.go (1)
Inconsistencies found in deprecation notice formatting
- Inconsistent capitalization: Some notices start with lowercase ("use") while others with uppercase ("Use")
- Inconsistent version removal notices: Some fields specify "will be removed after 0.52" while others don't mention removal timeline
- Inconsistent alternative service references: Some use "HeaderService" while similar fields use "core/transaction service"
- Inconsistent punctuation: Some notices end with periods while others don't
🔗 Analysis chain
Line range hint
39-61: Verify consistency of deprecation noticesLet's ensure all deprecation messages follow a consistent format and provide clear migration paths.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check consistency of deprecation notices in the Context struct # Search for all deprecation notices in the file rg "Deprecated:" types/context.go -A 1 # Search for all deprecated fields and methods to ensure they have proper notices ast-grep --pattern 'Deprecated: $$$'Length of output: 2302
📜 Review details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yml
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (3)
server/util_test.go(1 hunks)store/internal/proofs/create.go(2 hunks)types/context.go(1 hunks)
✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (1)
- store/internal/proofs/create.go
🧰 Additional context used
📓 Path-based instructions (2)
server/util_test.go (2)
Pattern **/*.go: Review the Golang code for conformity with the Uber Golang style guide, highlighting any deviations.
Pattern **/*_test.go: "Assess the unit test code assessing sufficient code coverage for the changes associated in the pull request"
types/context.go (1)
Pattern **/*.go: Review the Golang code for conformity with the Uber Golang style guide, highlighting any deviations.
🔇 Additional comments (2)
types/context.go (1)
33-38: LGTM! Documentation style is consistent and clear.
The comment style change aligns with the PR objective while maintaining clear and informative documentation.
server/util_test.go (1)
263-265: LGTM! Test documentation is clear and helpful.
The comment style change improves readability while effectively explaining the test structure and purpose.
When reading the code, I found two styles of method comments, which were unified into "//"
Summary by CodeRabbit
Bug Fixes
Documentation
Contextstruct, guiding users towards updated practices.