chore: fix typo #4152
chore: fix typo #4152
Conversation
Guayaba221
requested review from
rootulp and
evan-forbes
and removed request for
a team
📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughThe pull request introduces modifications to the test suite for the Changes
No changes were made to exported or public entity declarations in this diff. Tip CodeRabbit's docstrings feature is now available as part of our Early Access Program! Simply use the command 📜 Recent review detailsConfiguration used: .coderabbit.yaml 📒 Files selected for processing (1)
🔇 Additional comments (1)pkg/da/data_availability_header_test.go (1)
The rename from "bash hash" to "bad hash" better reflects the test case's purpose of validating incorrect hash scenarios. ✅ Verification successfulRename from "bash hash" to "bad hash" is correct and consistent with test implementation The test case correctly validates a DataAvailabilityHeader with an invalid hash (set to 🏁 Scripts executedThe following scripts were executed for the analysis: Script: #!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify the test case behavior remains consistent
# Test: Run the specific test case to ensure it still fails as expected
go test -v -run "Test_DAHValidateBasic/bad_hash" ./pkg/da/
Length of output: 151 Script: #!/bin/bash
# Let's examine the test case implementation to verify the change
rg -A 10 -B 2 "bad hash" pkg/da/data_availability_header_test.go
Length of output: 804 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
Documentation and Community
|
📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughThe pull request involves a minor modification to the test suite for the Changes
Notes
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
Documentation and Community
|
![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
🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
pkg/da/data_availability_header_test.go (1)
Line range hint
189-194: Consider enhancing hash validation test coverage.While the test case correctly validates invalid hashes, consider splitting it into two specific cases:
- Invalid hash length (current 4-byte case)
- Invalid hash content (with correct 32-byte length)
This would provide better coverage of hash validation scenarios.
Example enhancement:
{ - name: "bad hash", + name: "bad hash length", dah: badHashDah, expectErr: true, errStr: "wrong hash", }, + { + name: "bad hash content", + dah: DataAvailabilityHeader{ + hash: bytes.Repeat([]byte{1}, 32), + }, + expectErr: true, + errStr: "wrong hash", + },
📜 Review details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
pkg/da/data_availability_header_test.go(1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (1)
pkg/da/data_availability_header_test.go (1)
190-190: LGTM! The test case name correction improves clarity.
The change from "bash hash" to "bad hash" better reflects the test's purpose of validating incorrect hash handling.
Let's verify that this test case effectively catches hash validation issues:
✅ Verification successful
The test case name change accurately reflects its purpose and validation logic
The code inspection confirms that the test case "bad hash" correctly verifies the DataAvailabilityHeader's hash validation logic. The test uses a deliberately incorrect 4-byte hash (badHashDah.hash = []byte{1, 2, 3, 4}) to ensure the ValidateBasic() method properly rejects invalid hash lengths, with the expected error message "wrong hash".
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify the hash validation logic in the codebase
# Look for hash validation checks that this test case is verifying
# Search for hash validation logic
rg -A 5 "ValidateBasic.*hash" --type go
Length of output: 41
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's try a broader search to understand the validation context
# First, let's look at the test file content
cat pkg/da/data_availability_header_test.go
# Also search for ValidateBasic without specific hash mention
rg "ValidateBasic" --type go -A 5
Length of output: 20594
After reviewing the code’s context and function, there was a typo, so I fixed it. Thanks.