Rename invariant::Valid to invariant::Safe
#2913
Conversation
Summary of ChangesHello @jswrenn, I'm Gemini Code Assist1! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed! This pull request implements a significant refactoring by renaming the Highlights
🧠 New Feature in Public Preview: You can now enable Memory to help Gemini Code Assist learn from your team's feedback. This makes future code reviews more consistent and personalized to your project's style. Click here to enable Memory in your admin console. Using Gemini Code AssistThe full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips. Invoking Gemini You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either
Customization To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a Limitations & Feedback Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for Github and other Google products, sign up here. You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension. Footnotes
|
![gemini-code-assist[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/956858?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Code Review
This pull request is a large-scale refactoring that renames invariant::Valid to invariant::Safe. The changes are mostly consistent across all modified files. I found one critical issue in a test file that seems to be a syntax error introduced during the refactoring. Once that is fixed, this will be a good preparatory change for the upcoming improvements mentioned in the description.
Codecov Report✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests. Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #2913 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 92.02% 92.02%
=======================================
Files 19 19
Lines 6029 6029
=======================================
Hits 5548 5548
Misses 481 481 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
jswrenn
force-pushed
the
Gb6fa34cec5080caffa0980ed1d3e1ae273550f44
branch
from
86ed3f5 to
0208eba
Compare
jswrenn
force-pushed
the
G0f139a4a1ea20e62488df402468293623a806667
branch
2 times, most recently
from
135b042 to
1173bdb
Compare
jswrenn
force-pushed
the
Gb6fa34cec5080caffa0980ed1d3e1ae273550f44
branch
from
0208eba to
7f5262d
Compare
joshlf
left a comment
joshlf
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Are there places where we should update doc comments?
joshlf
left a comment
joshlf
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Are there places where we should update doc comments?
jswrenn
force-pushed
the
G0f139a4a1ea20e62488df402468293623a806667
branch
from
1173bdb to
86490b0
Compare
jswrenn
force-pushed
the
Gb6fa34cec5080caffa0980ed1d3e1ae273550f44
branch
2 times, most recently
from
c28cac9 to
2974513
Compare
jswrenn
force-pushed
the
G0f139a4a1ea20e62488df402468293623a806667
branch
2 times, most recently
from
ca073fd to
6ede450
Compare
jswrenn
force-pushed
the
G0f139a4a1ea20e62488df402468293623a806667
branch
2 times, most recently
from
ca20651 to
3bbe0e5
Compare
jswrenn
force-pushed
the
G0f139a4a1ea20e62488df402468293623a806667
branch
3 times, most recently
from
132d6be to
15daa98
Compare
jswrenn
force-pushed
the
G0f139a4a1ea20e62488df402468293623a806667
branch
2 times, most recently
from
ee4e404 to
cab8ea8
Compare
This change anticipates two improvements to our validity typestate: 1. The introduction of a `BitValid` typestate that does *not* promise that library-safety invariants are also upheld. 2. The introduction of a `Valid` trait, which encodes when a validity typestate is in a bit-valid state. This will become essential in an upcoming PR, where validity may be specified either atomically or on a per-field basis. gherrit-pr-id: G0f139a4a1ea20e62488df402468293623a806667
jswrenn
force-pushed
the
G0f139a4a1ea20e62488df402468293623a806667
branch
from
cab8ea8 to
2cf6e37
Compare
| [[package]] | ||
| name = "zerocopy" | ||
| version = "0.8.36" | ||
| version = "0.8.37" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@joshlf A downside of committing the Cargo.lock is that releases are going to churn the lockfile, even if no third-party dependencies actually change.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah, this is a bummer. I wonder if we can automate bumping this.
3 participants
This change anticipates two improvements to our validity typestate:
The introduction of a
BitValidtypestate that does notpromise that library-safety invariants are also upheld.
The introduction of a
Validtrait, which encodes when avalidity typestate is in a bit-valid state. This will become
essential in an upcoming PR, where validity may be specified
either atomically or on a per-field basis.
invariant::Validtoinvariant::Safe#2913Latest Update: v14 — Compare vs v13
📚 Full Patch History
Links show the diff between the row version and the column version.