Made tweaks to the middleware documentation #474
Conversation
WalkthroughThis update revises and expands the English language documentation strings for various middleware components within the Changes
Possibly related PRs
Poem
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. 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
|
![github-actions[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/15368?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thank you for contributing!
Please make sure the actions pass. Once your pull request has been merged, you will automatically be added to the contributor's list on the website.
If you want to be shouted out on Linkedin, have a look for the shoutout issue of the specific version.
You can also find us on slack at idrinth-api-bench.
![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
♻️ Duplicate comments (3)
language/en.yml (3)
361-365: Repeat “no-op” spacing fix
Lines 363-364 share the spacing issue; apply the same adjustment.
391-394: Mirror JSON wording fix for XML validator
Ensure consistency: plural “headers” and clearer phrasing.
406-409: Apply same “known” correction to failure-check
Duplicate issue; remedy likewise.
🧹 Nitpick comments (7)
language/en.yml (7)
348-349: Correct misspelling “reequest” and clarify sentence
Code of Rabbit has located an erroneous double-e inreequest.autohandleand overly verbose wording.- pre: "Here it checks if the reequest.autohandle field is set to either 'JSON' or 'form'. If JSON, the Content-Type is set to application/json, else if set to form then Content-Type is set to application/x-www-form-urlencoded. If autohandle is missing, it sends the request unmodified." + pre: "Checks whether the request.autohandle field is set to 'JSON' or 'form'. If 'JSON' it sets Content-Type to 'application/json'; if 'form' to 'application/x-www-form-urlencoded'. When autohandle is absent, the request is sent unmodified."
350-350: Unify “no-op” formatting
Code of Rabbit recommends inserting a space after the parenthetical for legibility and mirroring this across the file.- post: "This is a no-op(no operation), so no functionality." + post: "This is a no-op (no operation); it performs no additional processing."
352-353: Improve grammar in access-token description
Phrase is currently awkward: “in common response structured”. Refine for clarity.- description: "This handles bearer tokens, including JWTs retrieval and setting in common response structured." + description: "Handles bearer tokens, including JWT retrieval and setting, in commonly-used response structures."
355-355: Token-name list punctuation
For consistency, hyphenate token names and use the Oxford comma.
357-359: Fix past participle and add hyphen
“build in common manners” → “built in common manners”, and “cross-site” needs a hyphen.- description: "This middleware handles cross site request forgery tokens build in common manners." + description: "Handles cross-site request-forgery tokens built in common manners."
386-390: Pluralise “header” and tighten wording
Current sentence reads awkwardly; refine for precision.- description: "This validator checks for valid JSON in header and body response." + description: "Validates that the response headers and body contain valid JSON."
401-405: Replace “know” with “known”
Grammar glitch detected by Code of Rabbit.- post: "If the success field is not there or not a know positive this will fail." + post: "Fails if the success field is missing or not a known positive value."
2 participants
The Pull Request is ready
Overview
Review points
Documentation-Website
Notes