Correct spelling #81
Correct spelling #81
Conversation
WalkthroughThe changes primarily involve renaming the misspelled variable Changes
Sequence Diagram(s)sequenceDiagram
participant User
participant Optics
User->>Optics: Create instance of Optics
Optics->>Optics: Initialize reachability
User->>Optics: Call process
Optics->>Optics: Process data with reachability
User->>Optics: Call update
Optics->>Optics: Update data with reachability
Poem
📜 Recent review detailsConfiguration used: CodeRabbit UI 📒 Files selected for processing (1)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
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? 🪧 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
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
![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
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (2)
src/optics.rs (2)
Line range hint
219-219: Fix missed rename in update function parameterThere's an inconsistent spelling in the function parameter name that needs to be fixed.
Apply this change:
- reacheability: &mut [A], + reachability: &mut [A],Also applies to: 228-231
Fix misspelling of
reachabilityinsrc/optics.rsThe misspelling
reacheabilityappears in 7 locations withinsrc/optics.rs. These need to be corrected toreachability:
- Line 208: Parameter name in
updatefunction- Lines 211-217: Variable usage within
updatefunction- Lines 219-220: Variable usage in sort comparison
🔗 Analysis chain
Line range hint
1-358: Verify no remaining misspellingsLet's ensure no instances of the misspelling remain in the codebase.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for any remaining instances of the misspelling rg -i 'reacheability'Length of output: 398
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
src/optics.rs(11 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (7)
src/optics.rs (7)
44-44: LGTM: Correct spelling of struct field
The rename from reacheability to reachability is correct and improves code readability.
59-59: LGTM: Consistent rename in Default implementation
The field initialization is correctly renamed to match the struct field.
77-77: LGTM: Consistent rename in constructor
The field initialization in the new constructor is correctly renamed.
91-91: LGTM: Consistent rename in cluster extraction logic
The field access is correctly renamed while preserving the original logic.
133-133: LGTM: Consistent rename in fit method
The vector initialization is correctly renamed while maintaining the same initialization logic.
161-161: LGTM: Consistent rename in process function
The parameter is correctly renamed in the process function signature.
281-281: LGTM: Consistent function rename
The function name is correctly renamed to use proper spelling.
Summary by CodeRabbit
reachabilityvariable throughout the Optics struct and its methods, enhancing clarity and preventing potential errors.reacheability_distancetoreachability_distancefor consistency.