-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4.1k
docs: multiple typos of different importance #25098
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
Conversation
📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughThis update makes minor textual corrections to comments and documentation across several modules. Changes include fixing grammatical errors, clarifying command usage examples, correcting comment descriptions, and updating changelog formatting. No functional, logic, or control flow changes are introduced, and no exported or public entities are altered. Changes
Estimated code review effort🎯 1 (Trivial) | ⏱️ ~2 minutes Note ⚡️ Unit Test Generation is now available in beta!Learn more here, or try it out under "Finishing Touches" below. ✨ Finishing Touches
🧪 Generate unit tests
Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out. 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
SupportNeed help? Create a ticket on our support page for assistance with any issues or questions. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
x/evidence/README.md (1)
274-283: Still one leftover double-word in the example command
Line 274 correctly showssimd query evidence [flags], but the example directly below (Line 282) still uses the old duplicated form:simd query evidence evidence "<hash>"Consider updating the example for consistency:
-simd query evidence evidence "DF0C23E8634E480F84B9D5674A7CDC9816466DEC28A3358F73260F68D28D7660" +simd query evidence "DF0C23E8634E480F84B9D5674A7CDC9816466DEC28A3358F73260F68D28D7660"
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
Knowledge Base: Disabled due to Reviews > Disable Knowledge Base setting
📒 Files selected for processing (8)
x/evidence/CHANGELOG.md(1 hunks)x/evidence/README.md(1 hunks)x/evidence/types/router.go(1 hunks)x/feegrant/errors.go(1 hunks)x/genutil/README.md(1 hunks)x/gov/client/cli/prompt.go(1 hunks)x/gov/client/cli/prompt_test.go(1 hunks)x/gov/keeper/common_test.go(1 hunks)
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms. You can increase the timeout in your CodeRabbit configuration to a maximum of 15 minutes (900000ms). (1)
- GitHub Check: Summary
🔇 Additional comments (7)
x/gov/keeper/common_test.go (1)
113-117: Comment typo correctly fixed – nothing else to address
The replacement of “MegServiceRouter” with “MsgServiceRouter” clarifies the comment and matches the actual type name. No functional code is touched.x/feegrant/errors.go (1)
5-6: Header now accurately reflects the module
Changing “governance” → “feegrant” aligns the comment with the surrounding code.x/evidence/types/router.go (1)
54-56: Correct handler description – looks good
Replacing “governance handler” with “evidence handler” removes the stray reference and improves accuracy.x/evidence/CHANGELOG.md (1)
41-42: Fixed PR-link formatting – OK
Adding the leading#produces the intended markdown link and keeps style consistent with the rest of the changelog.x/genutil/README.md (1)
19-19: Grammar correction approved.The change from "consist" to "consists" correctly fixes the subject-verb agreement, as "genesis" is singular and requires the singular verb form.
x/gov/client/cli/prompt.go (1)
68-68: Comment clarity improvement approved.Adding the article "a" before "slice" improves the grammatical correctness and readability of the comment describing the field skipping logic.
x/gov/client/cli/prompt_test.go (1)
62-62: Comment completion approved.Adding "int." completes the sentence and clarifies that the test is specifically checking values outside the range of the int type, which aligns with the test's purpose of validating integer parsing.
Description
Summary by CodeRabbit