Skip to content

docs: fix stale cursor doc in NatSpec (#128)#141

Merged
thedavidmeister merged 1 commit intomainfrom
feat/issue-128-fixup-stale-cursor-doc
May 4, 2026
Merged

docs: fix stale cursor doc in NatSpec (#128)#141
thedavidmeister merged 1 commit intomainfrom
feat/issue-128-fixup-stale-cursor-doc

Conversation

@thedavidmeister
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Summary

Doc-only fixups found while auditing remaining cursor uses after #139 / #140.

Fixes:

  • `ICorporateActionsV1.getActionParameters` NatSpec described the input as "a cursor returned from one of the traversal getters" — but the API return is data crossing the boundary, so it's an `actionId` per the rename convention. Same fix on the "mask the cursor's actionType" line below.
  • `LibCorporateActionReceipt.accountIdCursor` comment claimed "1-based index" with "0 = never migrated". Stale post-PR-124: indexing is 0-based and `cursor == 0` is the bootstrap node (identity for splits), semantically "no real migration applied yet".

No code changes, no bytecode impact.

After this lands, #128 can close — every remaining `cursor` reference in src/ is either a storage variable holding state-machine progress over time, a local variable during a walk, or descriptive prose about the cursor concept. All legitimate per the convention documented in the interface NatSpec.

Test plan

  • static analysis (CI)
  • legal (CI)
  • no test changes — doc only

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

- ICorporateActionsV1.getActionParameters: NatSpec described the input
  as "a cursor returned from one of the traversal getters" — but the
  return crosses the API boundary as data, so it's an actionId per the
  rename convention. Updated to actionId; same fix on the "mask the
  cursor's actionType" line below.
- LibCorporateActionReceipt.accountIdCursor: comment claimed "1-based
  index" with "0 = never migrated". Stale post-PR-124: indexing is
  0-based and `cursor == 0` is the bootstrap node (identity for
  splits), semantically "no real migration applied yet". Comment now
  matches.

Doc-only — no code changes, no bytecode impact.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
@coderabbitai
Copy link
Copy Markdown

coderabbitai Bot commented May 4, 2026

Warning

Rate limit exceeded

@thedavidmeister has exceeded the limit for the number of commits that can be reviewed per hour. Please wait 20 minutes and 27 seconds before requesting another review.

To keep reviews running without waiting, you can enable usage-based add-on for your organization. This allows additional reviews beyond the hourly cap. Account admins can enable it under billing.

⌛ How to resolve this issue?

After the wait time has elapsed, a review can be triggered using the @coderabbitai review command as a PR comment. Alternatively, push new commits to this PR.

We recommend that you space out your commits to avoid hitting the rate limit.

🚦 How do rate limits work?

CodeRabbit enforces hourly rate limits for each developer per organization.

Our paid plans have higher rate limits than the trial, open-source and free plans. In all cases, we re-allow further reviews after a brief timeout.

Please see our FAQ for further information.

ℹ️ Review info
⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Organization UI

Review profile: ASSERTIVE

Plan: Pro

Run ID: 2daff8fd-d08d-4918-8e4c-5ae5c2363435

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 2019864 and 1105c6a.

📒 Files selected for processing (2)
  • src/interface/ICorporateActionsV1.sol
  • src/lib/LibCorporateActionReceipt.sol
✨ Finishing Touches
🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
  • Create PR with unit tests
  • Commit unit tests in branch feat/issue-128-fixup-stale-cursor-doc

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share
Review rate limit: 0/1 reviews remaining, refill in 20 minutes and 27 seconds.

Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.

@thedavidmeister thedavidmeister merged commit 9bc9c6f into main May 4, 2026
4 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant