Added go-doc comments to exported functions #1
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
Hi CodeLingo Team Thanks for this pull request, it looks good to me. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Hi @fumin et al!
Since you merged we thought we'd see what else CodeLingo could do for you.
The fix (which I found with this tenet) just makes sure all exported functions are commented in the go-doc style. While this is a small issue it demonstrates how CodeLingo can be used to find hundreds of instances of an issue across multiple files in seconds, so nothing slips through the cracks.
Here's the full list of exported functions that i found using the CodeLingo review flow with just this one tenet.
unit.go#L13
ntm_test.go#L8
addressing_test.go#L19
cntl1.go#L243
cntl1.go#L105
cntl1.go#L129
cntl1.go#L97
cntl1.go#L239
cntl1.go#L133
cntl1.go#L188
cntl1.go#L101
cntl1.go#L93
cntl1.go#L214
cntl1.go#L125
cntl1.go#L218
cntl1.go#L137
cntl1.go#L210
cntl1.go#L235
ntm.go#L39
ntm.go#L66
ntm.go#L419
ntm.go#L294
ntm.go#L325
ntm.go#L315
ntm.go#L75
ntm.go#L84
ntm.go#L93
ntm.go#L48
ntm.go#L57
ntm.go#L286
cntl1_test.go#L69
cntl1_test.go#L9
cntl1_test.go#L38
addressing.go#L321
addressing.go#L202
addressing.go#L41
addressing.go#L527
addressing.go#L145
addressing.go#L111
addressing.go#L78
addressing.go#L492
addressing.go#L291
ngram/ngram.go#L43
ngram/ngram.go#L18
copytask/copytask.go#L7
poem/poem.go#L106
poem/poem.go#L49
poem/poem.go#L29
poem/poem.go#L122
poem/poem.go#L166
poem/poem.go#L131
poem/poem.go#L112
poem/poem.go#L118
ntm.go#L61
poem/poem.go#L158
ntm.go#L70
poem/poem.go#L164
ntm.go#L52
poem/poem.go#L165
ntm.go#L79
ntm.go#L88
repeatcopy/repeatcopy.go#L18
repeatcopy/repeatcopy.go#L77
ntm.go#L61
ntm.go#L70
ntm.go#L52
ntm.go#L79
ntm.go#L88
repeatcopy/repeatcopy.go#L18
repeatcopy/repeatcopy.go#L77
So you can hopefully see, CodeLingo is quite flexible. What bugs would you be keen to see us squash? We've got a tiny form to capture bug fixing ideas if you come up with any 😄
Thanks,
Callan