Minor Improvements for FAQ #372
Conversation
Changes in file docs/FAQ.md: * Applied improvements Changes in file tests/check_spelling: * related work
reactive-firewall
added
the
documentation
reactive-firewall
temporarily deployed
to
Testing
GitHub Actions
Inactive
reactive-firewall
temporarily deployed
to
Testing
GitHub Actions
Inactive
reactive-firewall
temporarily deployed
to
Testing
GitHub Actions
Inactive
reactive-firewall
temporarily deployed
to
Testing
GitHub Actions
Inactive
reactive-firewall
temporarily deployed
to
Testing
GitHub Actions
Inactive
reactive-firewall
temporarily deployed
to
Testing
GitHub Actions
Inactive
reactive-firewall
temporarily deployed
to
Testing
GitHub Actions
Inactive
reactive-firewall
temporarily deployed
to
Testing
GitHub Actions
Inactive
reactive-firewall
temporarily deployed
to
Testing
GitHub Actions
Inactive
WalkthroughThe changes focus on improving documentation and enhancing spell-checking in the project. In the FAQ documentation, several typographical errors and grammatical issues are corrected, and phrasing is refined for clarity and accuracy. In the spell-checking script, a new specific typo pair is added to the list of known spelling errors for regression testing. No logic, control flow, or exported/public entity declarations are affected by these changes. Changes
Assessment against linked issues
Suggested labels
Poem
Tip ⚡💬 Agentic Chat (Pro Plan, General Availability)
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:
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
|
|
Here's the code health analysis summary for commits Analysis Summary
|
github-actions
bot
added
Linter
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
📜 Review details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: ASSERTIVE
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
docs/FAQ.md(2 hunks)tests/check_spelling(1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
📓 Path-based instructions (2)
`docs/*`: When a project contains a `docs/` directory: 1. Consider the files in the `docs/` directory tree the core/main/in-depth documentation of the project. Also consider the...
docs/*: When a project contains adocs/directory: 1. Consider the files in thedocs/directory tree the core/main/in-depth documentation
of the project. Also consider the 'docs/**.md' files the second place to look for
project documentation after the 'README.md' file.
2. When reviewing the documentation files (e.g.docs/**.md), they should additionally
be linted with help from the toolmarkdownlint, pointing out any issues.
3. When reviewing the documentation files indocs/directory, they should additionally
be linted with help from the toollanguagetool, pointing out any issues.
docs/FAQ.md
`tests/*`: When reviewing **test** code: 1. Prioritize portability over clarity, especially when dealing with cross-Python compatibility. However, with the priority in mind, do ...
tests/*: When reviewing test code: 1. Prioritize portability over clarity, especially when dealing with cross-Python
compatibility. However, with the priority in mind, do still consider improvements
to clarity when relevant.
2. As a general guideline, consider the code style advocated in the PEP 8 standard
(excluding the use of spaces for indentation) and evaluate suggested changes
for code style compliance.
3. As a style convention, consider the code style advocated in
CEP-8
and evaluate suggested changes for code style compliance, pointing out any
violations discovered.
4. As a style convention, consider the code style advocated in
CEP-9
and evaluate suggested changes for nomenclature compliance, pointing out any
violations discovered, along with suggestions generated to correct the nomenclature.
5. As a general guideline, try to provide any relevant, official, and supporting
documentation links to any tool's suggestions in review comments. This guideline is
important for posterity.
6. As a project rule, Python source files with names prefixed by the string
"test_" and located in the project's "tests" directory are the project's unit-testing
code. It is safe, albeit a heuristic, to assume these are considered part of the
project's minimal acceptance testing unless a justifying exception to this assumption
is documented.
7. As a project rule, any files without extensions and with names prefixed by either the
string "check_" or the string "test_", and located in the project's "tests" directory,
are the project's non-unit test code. "Non-unit test" in this context refers to any
type of testing other than unit testing, such as (but not limited to)
functional testing, style linting, regression testing, etc. It can also be assumed
that non-unit testing code is usually (but not always) written as Bash shell scripts.
tests/check_spelling
🧠 Learnings (2)
📓 Common learnings
Learnt from: reactive-firewall
PR: reactive-firewall/multicast#115
File: multicast/hear.py:180-180
Timestamp: 2024-10-08T21:59:30.537Z
Learning: Reactive-firewall prefers to re-use already loaded modules to keep memory overhead low when possible.
Learnt from: reactive-firewall
PR: reactive-firewall/multicast#115
File: multicast/hear.py:180-180
Timestamp: 2024-09-19T03:43:24.037Z
Learning: Reactive-firewall prefers to re-use already loaded modules to keep memory overhead low when possible.
Learnt from: reactive-firewall
PR: reactive-firewall/multicast#139
File: tests/test_fuzz.py:73-73
Timestamp: 2024-10-08T21:59:27.171Z
Learning: Reactive-firewall prefers not to introduce new dependencies into the codebase when writing test functions.
Learnt from: reactive-firewall
PR: reactive-firewall/multicast#235
File: .github/workflows/makefile-lint.yml:41-52
Timestamp: 2024-12-06T08:21:21.876Z
Learning: Reactive-firewall prefers to suppress errors in `apt-get install` commands when individual checks of the installed packages are performed afterwards, to allow for more granular error handling.
Learnt from: reactive-firewall
PR: reactive-firewall/multicast#118
File: tests/check_pip:92-197
Timestamp: 2024-10-08T21:59:30.537Z
Learning: Reactive-firewall prefers defining functions before they are called in Bash scripts to avoid errors due to Bash's sequential interpretation.
Learnt from: reactive-firewall
PR: reactive-firewall/multicast#184
File: tests/test_hear_keyboard_interrupt.py:70-70
Timestamp: 2024-11-14T02:25:25.684Z
Learning: Reactive-firewall prefers to include suggested code changes or fixes in the issue's description when requested.
Learnt from: reactive-firewall
PR: reactive-firewall/multicast#148
File: tests/MulticastUDPClient.py:83-84
Timestamp: 2024-10-05T09:05:28.234Z
Learning: Reactive-firewall prefers to assign to `__module__` at the module level in their Python test modules.
Learnt from: reactive-firewall
PR: reactive-firewall/multicast#184
File: LICENSE.md:36-43
Timestamp: 2024-11-14T07:03:35.207Z
Learning: Reactive-firewall prefers that I verify URLs before suggesting changes, and avoid raising hypothetical issues without verification.
Learnt from: reactive-firewall
PR: reactive-firewall/multicast#110
File: docs/USAGE.md:66-66
Timestamp: 2024-09-17T03:38:28.677Z
Learning: Reactive-firewall prefers to use "Caveat" as a heading instead of "Caution".
Learnt from: reactive-firewall
PR: reactive-firewall/multicast#184
File: multicast/exceptions.py:187-254
Timestamp: 2024-11-15T04:44:54.598Z
Learning: Reactive-firewall prefers to retain the current implementation using `(*args, **kwargs)` in method definitions.
docs/FAQ.md (2)
Learnt from: reactive-firewall
PR: reactive-firewall/multicast#0
File: :0-0
Timestamp: 2024-12-15T21:16:54.942Z
Learning: The multicast project uses port 59259 as the default port, which is in the Dynamic Ports range (49152-65535) as defined by RFC-6335, and validates port numbers through the validate_port() function to ensure they stay within this range.
Learnt from: reactive-firewall
PR: reactive-firewall/multicast#142
File: docs/toc.md:75-79
Timestamp: 2024-10-08T21:59:30.537Z
Learning: The `build-docs` target in the `Makefile` handles moving a copy of the `LICENSE` and `README` files into place when building the documentation.
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (3)
- GitHub Check: DOCS (windows-latest, 3.10)
- GitHub Check: DOCS (windows-latest, 3.12)
- GitHub Check: DOCS (windows-latest, 3.13)
🔇 Additional comments (2)
tests/check_spelling (1)
150-150: Approve addition of new specific typo for regression testing.The new
"specificly:specifically"entry correctly extends theSPECIFIC_TYPOSarray to catch this common misspelling, aligning with the FAQ updates indocs/FAQ.md. No syntax or logic issues introduced.docs/FAQ.md (1)
202-204: Approve hyphenation and phrasing updates.The corrections to “real-world deployments” and changing to “as far as” enhance clarity and conform to standard English style.
github-project-automation
bot
moved this from In progress
to Regressions
in Multicast Project
|
@codecov-ai-reviewer review |
|
On it! We are reviewing the PR and will provide feedback shortly. |
reactive-firewall
temporarily deployed
to
Testing
GitHub Actions
Inactive
reactive-firewall
temporarily deployed
to
Testing
GitHub Actions
Inactive
reactive-firewall
temporarily deployed
to
Testing
GitHub Actions
Inactive
reactive-firewall
temporarily deployed
to
Testing
GitHub Actions
Inactive
reactive-firewall
temporarily deployed
to
Testing
GitHub Actions
Inactive
reactive-firewall
temporarily deployed
to
Testing
GitHub Actions
Inactive
reactive-firewall
temporarily deployed
to
Testing
GitHub Actions
Inactive
reactive-firewall
temporarily deployed
to
Testing
GitHub Actions
Inactive
reactive-firewall
temporarily deployed
to
Testing
GitHub Actions
Inactive
github-project-automation
bot
moved this from Regressions
to Resolved
in Multicast Project
Patch Notes
Impacted GHI
Summary by CodeRabbit
Documentation
Tests