docs: getVerifications instead of get

[harshsbhat]

What does this PR do?

Fixes #2299

There is a typo in the getVerifications SDK docs. .get method is used instead of .getVerifications

Type of change

• Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• Chore (refactoring code, technical debt, workflow improvements)
• Enhancement (small improvements)
• New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected)
• This change requires a documentation update

How should this be tested?

Go to https://www.unkey.com/docs/libraries/ts/sdk/keys/verifications it has .get instead it should be .getVerifications

Checklist

Required

• Filled out the "How to test" section in this PR
• Read Contributing Guide
• Self-reviewed my own code
• Commented on my code in hard-to-understand areas
• Ran pnpm build
• Ran pnpm fmt
• Checked for warnings, there are none
• Removed all console.logs
• Merged the latest changes from main onto my branch with git pull origin main
• My changes don't cause any responsiveness issues

Appreciated

• If a UI change was made: Added a screen recording or screenshots to this PR
• Updated the Unkey Docs if changes were necessary

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Documentation
  • Updated the "Verifications" API documentation to reflect the renaming of the method for retrieving verification data from unkey.keys.get to unkey.keys.getVerifications.
  • Maintained existing parameters and response structure for clarity and consistency.

[changeset-bot]

⚠️ No Changeset found

Latest commit: aa62152

Merging this PR will not cause a version bump for any packages. If these changes should not result in a new version, you're good to go. If these changes should result in a version bump, you need to add a changeset.

This PR includes no changesets

When changesets are added to this PR, you'll see the packages that this PR includes changesets for and the associated semver types

Click here to learn what changesets are, and how to add one.

Click here if you're a maintainer who wants to add a changeset to this PR

[vercel]

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎

Name	Status	Preview	Comments	Updated (UTC)
engineering	✅ Ready (Inspect)	Visit Preview	💬 Add feedback	Oct 11, 2024 9:47am

[coderabbitai]

📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

The pull request updates the documentation for the "Verifications" API in the @unkey/api SDK. The main change involves renaming the method from unkey.keys.get to unkey.keys.getVerifications, which is reflected in both the request and response examples. The required parameters, including keyId and ownerId, remain unchanged, and the response structure is consistent with previous documentation. The changes aim to clarify the method for accessing verification data.

Changes

File Path	Change Summary
apps/docs/libraries/ts/sdk/keys/verifications.mdx	Updated method name from unkey.keys.get to unkey.keys.getVerifications in request and response examples. Parameters and response structure remain unchanged.

Assessment against linked issues

Objective	Addressed	Explanation
Update documentation for keys.getVerifications method (2299)	✅
Ensure code blocks align with established format for other methods (2299)	✅

Possibly related PRs

• docs: Fixes a few typos in the docs from revoke to modify / retrieve #2212: Addresses documentation changes related to the keyId parameter, relevant to the verification methods.
• docs: fix typo and remove the weird line #2223: Involves documentation updates that may enhance overall clarity, similar to the main PR's objectives.
• fix: inconsistent API spelling in docs and dashboard #2275: Aims to standardize the spelling of "API" across documentation, aligning with the goal of improving clarity and consistency.

Suggested labels

Documentation, Bug, Good first issue, 🕹️ oss.gg, :joystick: 150 points, hacktoberfest

Suggested reviewers

• perkinsjr
• chronark

---

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

• 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 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.

[vercel]

@harshsbhat is attempting to deploy a commit to the Unkey Team on Vercel.

A member of the Team first needs to authorize it.

[github-actions]

Thank you for following the naming conventions for pull request titles! 🙏

[coderabbitai]

Actionable comments posted: 0

🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (2)

apps/docs/libraries/ts/sdk/keys/verifications.mdx (2)

74-74: LGTM! Consider adding a comment for clarity.

The method name has been correctly updated from unkey.keys.get to unkey.keys.getVerifications, which aligns with the PR objectives and fixes the documentation error.

Consider adding a brief comment above the code example to provide context:

+// Retrieve verification data for a specific key
const { result, error } = await unkey.keys.getVerifications({ keyId: "key_123" });

---

Line range hint 1-124: Overall changes look good. Consider updating the ResponseExample section.

The documentation has been consistently updated to reflect the new method name unkey.keys.getVerifications. The parameter descriptions and response structure remain accurate and consistent with the changes.

In the ResponseExample section, consider updating the comments to reflect the new method name:

-// result
+// result from unkey.keys.getVerifications
{
  verifications: [
    // ...
  ]
}

This change would further reinforce the new method name for users reading the documentation.

📜 Review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL

📥 Commits

Files that changed from the base of the PR and between 0608fee and aa62152.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• apps/docs/libraries/ts/sdk/keys/verifications.mdx (1 hunks)

🧰 Additional context used

[oss-gg]

Awarding harshsbhat: 150 points 🕹️ Well done! Check out your new contribution on oss.gg/harshsbhat