Tweaked the comments in the Makefile

[reactive-firewall]

Patch Notes

Impacted GHI

• Closes v2.0.x Chore - improve makefile comments to align with CEP-8 #239 -)

Changes in file Makefile:

• minor change to comments

---

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Documentation
  • Improved comments in the documentation build process to clarify the meaning of specific exit codes when directory checks fail.

[coderabbitai]

Walkthrough

The Makefile was updated to improve the clarity of comments describing the exit codes used in the ./docs/ target. The logic and commands remain unchanged, but the comments now explicitly state the meaning of exit codes 77 and 69, aligning with the referenced documentation and standards. No changes were made to the control flow or any exported entities.

Changes

File(s)	Change Summary
Makefile	Updated comments for exit codes 77 and 69 in the ./docs/ target to clarify their meanings.

Assessment against linked issues

Objective	Addressed	Explanation
Improve Makefile comments to clarify exit codes per CEP-8 (#239)	✅

Poem

In the Makefile’s warren, a tweak so neat,
Comments now clear, a documentation treat!
Exit codes explained, no more guessing the cause,
For rabbits and coders, a round of applause!
With 77 and 69, the reasons now shine—
The docs hop forward, in orderly line.
🐇✨

Tip

⚡💬 Agentic Chat (Pro Plan, General Availability)

• We're introducing multi-step agentic chat in review comments and issue comments, within and outside of PR's. This feature enhances review and issue discussions with the CodeRabbit agentic chat by enabling advanced interactions, including the ability to create pull requests directly from comments and add commits to existing pull requests.

---

📜 Recent review details

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

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between daf1eb6 and f73c19f.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• Makefile (1 hunks)

🧰 Additional context used

🧠 Learnings (1)

📓 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.

⏰ 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 (1)

Makefile (1)

439-440: Approve improved comments for exit codes in the docs target.

The comments now explicitly map exit 77 to "Permission denied" (EX_NOPERM) and exit 69 to "Service unavailable" (EX_UNAVAILABLE), aligning with sysexits.h standards. This enhances clarity without affecting behavior.

---

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.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

🪧 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.

[deepsource-io]

Here's the code health analysis summary for commits daf1eb6..f73c19f. View details on DeepSource ↗.

Analysis Summary

Analyzer	Status	Summary	Link
Python	✅ Success		View Check ↗

---

💡 If you’re a repository administrator, you can configure the quality gates from the settings.

[reactive-firewall]

@codecov-ai-reviewer review

[codecov-ai]

On it! We are reviewing the PR and will provide feedback shortly.