chore: improve code comments clarity #2947
Conversation
Signed-off-by: luohewuyang <luohewuyang@outlook.com>
Summary of ChangesHello @luohewuyang, I'm Gemini Code Assist1! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed! This pull request focuses on refining the clarity and precision of existing code comments across two files. It addresses minor grammatical and wording inconsistencies to ensure that the inline documentation accurately conveys the intended meaning, thereby enhancing code readability and maintainability for future developers. Highlights
🧠 New Feature in Public Preview: You can now enable Memory to help Gemini Code Assist learn from your team's feedback. This makes future code reviews more consistent and personalized to your project's style. Click here to enable Memory in your admin console. Using Gemini Code AssistThe full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips. Invoking Gemini You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either
Customization To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a Limitations & Feedback Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for Github and other Google products, sign up here. You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension. Footnotes
|
![gemini-code-assist[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/956858?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Code Review
This pull request aims to improve code comments. The change in types/signed_header.go is a good step towards better clarity. I've provided a suggestion to further refine the comment for conciseness and consistency. I also noticed significant code duplication between ValidateBasic and ValidateBasicWithData and recommend refactoring to improve maintainability. The change in block/internal/submitting/submitter.go appears to be a formatting-only change with no functional impact, so I have no feedback there.
| } | ||
|
|
||
| // ValidateBasicWithData performs basic validator of a signed header, granted data for syncing node. | ||
| // ValidateBasicWithData performs basic validation of a signed header, given data for syncing node. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
While this change improves the grammar, the comment could be more concise and align better with the comment for ValidateBasic. ValidateBasic is documented as being for an aggregator node. This function appears to be for a sync node. A more direct comment would be clearer.
| // ValidateBasicWithData performs basic validation of a signed header, given data for syncing node. | |
| // ValidateBasicWithData performs basic validation of a signed header for a sync node. |
|
|
||
| // ValidateBasicWithData performs basic validator of a signed header, granted data for syncing node. | ||
| // ValidateBasicWithData performs basic validation of a signed header, given data for syncing node. | ||
| func (sh *SignedHeader) ValidateBasicWithData(data *Data) error { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This function ValidateBasicWithData shares a significant amount of code with ValidateBasic (lines 110-186). This duplication makes the code harder to maintain, as bug fixes or logic changes need to be applied in both places.
To improve maintainability, consider refactoring the common validation logic into a private helper function. The differences, like the signature provider (aggregatorSignatureProvider vs. syncNodeSignatureBytesProvider), could be handled by passing a function as an argument to the new helper.
2 participants
Overview
improve code comments clarity