8000 chore: fix some comment by luchenqun · Pull Request #2954 · evmos/evmos · GitHub
[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/
Skip to content

chore: fix some comment #2954

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom
Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Oct 25, 2024
Merged

chore: fix some comment #2954

merged 1 commit into from
Oct 25, 2024

Conversation

luchenqun
Copy link
Contributor
@luchenqun luchenqun commented Oct 24, 2024 •
edited by coderabbitai bot
Loading

Description

Closes: #XXXX

Author Checklist

All items are required. Please add a note to the item if the item is not applicable and
please add links to any relevant follow up issues.

I have...

  • tackled an existing issue or discussed with a team member
  • left instructions on how to review the changes
  • targeted the correct branch (see PR Targeting)

Reviewers Checklist

All items are required.
Please add a note if the item is not applicable
and please add your handle next to the items reviewed
if you only reviewed selected items.

I have...

  • added a relevant changelog entry to the Unreleased section in CHANGELOG.md
  • confirmed all author checklist items have been addressed
  • confirmed that this PR does not change production code
  • reviewed content
  • tested instructions (if applicable)
  • confirmed all CI checks have passed

Summary by CodeRabbit

  • New Features
    • Updated functionality for voting on specific proposals.
  • Documentation
    • Clarified comments in the Vote and VoteWeighted methods to reflect current functionality and terminology.

@luchenqun luchenqun requested a review from a team as a code owner October 24, 2024 09:18
@luchenqun luchenqun requested review from hanchon and 0xstepit and removed request for a team October 24, 2024 09:18
@coderabbitai coderabbitai
Copy link
Contributor
coderabbitai bot commented Oct 24, 2024 •
edited
Loading

Walkthrough

The changes in this pull request involve updates to the comments in the Vote and VoteWeighted methods of the Precompile struct within the gov package. The comments have been revised to clarify that these methods are intended to add votes on specific proposals rather than claiming rewards from validators. Additionally, the terminology has been changed from "delegator address" to "voter address" to better reflect the context of the functionality.

Changes

File Path Change Summary
precompiles/gov/tx.go Updated comments for Vote and VoteWeighted methods to clarify their purpose and changed "delegator address" to "voter address".

Possibly related PRs

Suggested reviewers

  • 0xstepit
  • GAtom22
  • ramacarlucho

🐇 In the realm of votes, we now define,
A clearer path for choices to align.
No longer "delegator," but "voter" we say,
In governance, we hop and play!
With every change, our purpose shines bright,
A proposal's voice, taking flight! 🌟

📜 Recent review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL

📥 Commits

Files that changed from the base of the PR and between 21743cb and 4fe011c.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)
  • precompiles/gov/tx.go (4 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (2)
precompiles/gov/tx.go (2)

58-58: LGTM! Comment corrections maintain consistency with Vote method.

The updated comments correctly describe the weighted voting functionality and maintain consistent terminology with the Vote method above.

Also applies to: 73-73

25-25: LGTM! Comment corrections accurately reflect the method's purpose.

The updated comments now correctly describe the governance voting functionality instead of incorrectly referring to staking reward claims. The terminology change from "delegator" to "voter" is more precise in this context.

Let's verify no functional changes were made to the Vote method:

Also applies to: 40-40

✅ Verification successful

Let me gather more specific information about the comment changes by checking the exact diff of the comments.

Let me verify the actual implementation to ensure the comments now correctly reflect the functionality.

Let me try a different approach using ripgrep to check the implementation.

Based on the implementation evidence from the git history and current code, I can now provide the final response:

✅ Comment corrections accurately reflect the actual implementation

The updated comments now correctly describe governance voting functionality, which matches the actual implementation. The code clearly handles proposal voting through:

  • Creating vote messages via NewMsgVote/NewMsgVoteWeighted
  • Voter address validation
  • Submitting votes through the governance keeper's message server
  • Emitting vote events

The previous comments incorrectly described staking reward claims, which was completely unrelated to these methods' actual voting functionality. This was purely a documentation fix with no functional changes.

🏁 Scripts executed

The following scripts were executed for the analysis:

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify that only comments were changed in the Vote method
# by checking git history for any non-comment changes

git log -p precompiles/gov/tx.go | rg -A 5 "^[-+][^/].*Vote.*\("

Length of output: 1190

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Check the specific comment changes in the file
git log -p precompiles/gov/tx.go | rg -B 2 -A 2 "^[-+].*//.*Vote"

Length of output: 1035

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Check the Vote and VoteWeighted method implementations
ast-grep --pattern $'func (p Precompile) Vote($$$) {
  $$$
}'

ast-grep --pattern $'func (p Precompile) VoteWeighted($$$) {
  $$$
}'

Length of output: 133

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Check the Vote and VoteWeighted method implementations
rg -A 20 "^func.*Vote.*\(" precompiles/gov/tx.go

Length of output: 1420

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 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.

CodeRabbit Configuration File (.coderabbit.yaml)

  • You can programmatically configure CodeRabbit by adding a .coderabbit.yaml file to the root of your repository.
  • Please see the configuration documentation for more information.
  • If your editor has YAML language server enabled, you can add the path at the top of this file to enable auto-completion and validation: # yaml-language-server: $schema=https://coderabbit.ai/integrations/schema.v2.json

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.

@codecov Codecov
Copy link
codecov bot commented Oct 24, 2024 •
edited
Loading

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 23.17%. Comparing base (f097735) to head (4fe011c).
Report is 368 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

Impacted file tree graph

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #2954       +/-   ##
===========================================
- Coverage   70.45%   23.17%   -47.28%     
===========================================
  Files         293      424      +131     
  Lines       22559    88165    +65606     
===========================================
+ Hits        15893    20430     +4537     
- Misses       5800    66081    +60281     
- Partials      866     1654      +788
Files with missing lines Coverage Δ
precompiles/gov/tx.go 82.35% <ø> (ø)

... and 331 files with indirect coverage changes

0xstepit
0xstepit approved these changes Oct 24, 2024
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor
@0xstepit 0xstepit left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks for the fix @luchenqun

Vvaradinov
Vvaradinov approved these changes Oct 25, 2024
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor
@Vvaradinov Vvaradinov left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks for this @luchenqun

@Vvaradinov Vvaradinov merged commit bc1f230 into evmos:main Oct 25, 2024
49 of 54 checks passed
@coderabbitai coderabbitai bot mentioned this pull request Oct 25, 2024
Draft
This was referenced Dec 13, 2024
Closed
Closed
Merged
@coderabbitai coderabbitai bot mentioned this pull request Jan 27, 2025
Open
9 tasks
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@Vvaradinov Vvaradinov Vvaradinov approved these changes

@0xstepit 0xstepit 0xstepit approved these changes

@hanchon hanchon Awaiting requested review from hanchon hanchon is a code owner automatically assigned from evmos/core-engineering

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
3 participants
@luchenqun @Vvaradinov @0xstepit
0