Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

chore: fix some function names in comment #3610

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Feb 28, 2025

Conversation

huochexizhan
Copy link
Contributor

@huochexizhan huochexizhan commented Feb 28, 2025

Description

fix some function names in comment

How Has This Been Tested?

  • Tested CCTX in localnet
  • Tested in development environment
  • Go unit tests
  • Go integration tests
  • Tested via GitHub Actions

Summary by CodeRabbit

  • Documentation
    • Updated descriptive comments for a cryptographic scripting function to ensure naming consistency.
    • Revised the description for a function that generates a random number within a range, enhancing clarity and alignment with its actual designation.

@huochexizhan huochexizhan requested a review from a team as a code owner February 28, 2025 17:37
@gartnera gartnera added the no-changelog Skip changelog CI check label Feb 28, 2025
@gartnera gartnera enabled auto-merge February 28, 2025 17:52
Copy link
Contributor

coderabbitai bot commented Feb 28, 2025

📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

The pull request updates documentation comments in two source files. In one file, the comment for the function returning a Bitcoin P2WPKH script was corrected to reflect its actual name, BTCAddressP2WPKHScript. In the other file, the comment for the function generating a random uint64 was updated to match its proper name, Uint64InRangeFromRand. These updates improve documentation consistency without changing the code's functionality.

Changes

File(s) Change Summary
testutil/sample/crypto.go, testutil/sample/sample.go Updated exported function comments to accurately reflect the actual function names: BTCAddressP2WPKHScript and Uint64InRangeFromRand.

Suggested reviewers

  • lumtis

📜 Recent review details

Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 9e2c8e1 and d9ccd3c.

📒 Files selected for processing (2)
  • testutil/sample/crypto.go (1 hunks)
  • testutil/sample/sample.go (1 hunks)
✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (2)
  • testutil/sample/crypto.go
  • testutil/sample/sample.go
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (1)
  • GitHub Check: start-e2e-test / e2e

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?

❤️ Share
🪧 Tips

Chat

There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:

  • Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by CodeRabbit. Example:
    • I pushed a fix in commit <commit_id>, please review it.
    • Generate unit testing code for this file.
    • Open a follow-up GitHub issue for this discussion.
  • Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab): Tag @coderabbitai in a new review comment at the desired location with your query. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai generate unit testing code for this file.
    • @coderabbitai modularize this function.
  • PR comments: Tag @coderabbitai in a new PR comment to ask questions about the PR branch. For the best results, please provide a very specific query, as very limited context is provided in this mode. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai gather interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table. Additionally, render a pie chart showing the language distribution in the codebase.
    • @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and generate unit testing code.
    • @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.
    • @coderabbitai help me debug CodeRabbit configuration file.

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)

  • @coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
  • @coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
  • @coderabbitai review to trigger an incremental review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai full review to do a full review from scratch and review all the files again.
  • @coderabbitai summary to regenerate the summary of the PR.
  • @coderabbitai generate docstrings to generate docstrings for this PR.
  • @coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
  • @coderabbitai configuration to show the current CodeRabbit configuration for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai help to get help.

Other keywords and placeholders

  • Add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.
  • Add @coderabbitai summary to generate the high-level summary at a specific location in the PR description.
  • Add @coderabbitai anywhere in the PR title to generate the title automatically.

Documentation and Community

  • Visit our Documentation for detailed information on how to use CodeRabbit.
  • Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.
  • Follow us on X/Twitter for updates and announcements.

@gartnera gartnera added this pull request to the merge queue Feb 28, 2025
Merged via the queue into zeta-chain:develop with commit 0c5bccb Feb 28, 2025
52 of 53 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
no-changelog Skip changelog CI check
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants