refactor: initialised clippy::missing_panics_doc

[Gmin2]

Rationale for this change

In order to improve documentation and identify possible panics, we should enable clippy lints that warn when a function that panics but does not document this behavior.

What changes are included in this PR?

Added panic doc comments for all the unwrap() statements

Fixes #163
/claim #163

[Gmin2]

@JayWhite2357 , to complete the doc part of it will take two to three days

[JayWhite2357]

If you get this to pass CI, I'm happy to merge this PR while you work on the docs in a separate PR.
It would prevent any new code from being undocumented in the meantime.

[JayWhite2357]

Since you've contributed a couple PRs now, it would be helpful for you to be a bit more verbose on the merge requests.
Check out some of the recently merged PRs for some examples: #181, #180.

[JayWhite2357]

@Gmin2 it looks like I can't approve the CI workflows unless the branch conflicts are resolved.

[Gmin2]

Hey @JayWhite2357, i think it will make sense to include docs in this PR only, wdyt?

[JayWhite2357]

Hey @JayWhite2357, i think it will make sense to include docs in this PR only, wdyt?

It doesn't matter to me. Entirely up to you.

[Gmin2]

Hey @JayWhite2357, completed all the panic docs for unwrap() statements, but the assert statements are giving warnings what should i do about them ?

[JayWhite2357]

Hey @JayWhite2357, completed all the panic docs for unwrap() statements, but the assert statements are giving warnings what should i do about them ?

@Gmin2

If the assert is guaranteed to not panic, then it is safe to use allow(clippy::missing_panics_doc, reason = "some reasoning why we should not include a panic doc").
Be sure that the reason is thorough. If needed, put a short reason in the reason = "..." and if a more verbose explanation is needed, put more in some comments (not docs).

[JayWhite2357]

I started reviewing some of this.

The general feedback I have on this: there are some cases where an unwrap or another panic could occur, but based on the logic of the methods, doesn't occur. This should not be included in the Panic documentation, and instead should be expected away and explained in comments (no docs).

Additionally, there are a couple of spots I noted where the panic documentation could be a bit more descriptive on the root cause of why the panic occurs.

In both cases, you may have to look at, for example, why a method returns None so that you can explain either why a panic might occur or why it cannot occur.

[JayWhite2357]

@Gmin2 thanks for the effort here. It is looking good!

[Gmin2]

@Gmin2 thanks for the effort here. It is looking good!

Hey @JayWhite2357 , i have added all the changes you have mentioned, can you take a look and one more thing can we wrap this quickly because the merge conflicts are getting bigger and bigger, if somethings needs to be adjusted we can do it in the followup PR

[JayWhite2357]

/approve

[algora-pbc]

@JayWhite2357: The claim has been successfully added to reward-all. You can visit your dashboard to complete the payment.

[github-actions]

🎉 This PR is included in version 0.27.7 🎉

The release is available on GitHub release

Your semantic-release bot 📦🚀