chore: fix some minor issues in comments #398
Conversation
Signed-off-by: pingshuijie <pingshuijie@outlook.com>
|
The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎ 1 Skipped Deployment
|
WalkthroughThis update corrects typographical errors in several documentation files, specifically fixing the misspellings of "output" and "efficiency" in both HTML and Markdown sources. No changes to logic, structure, or public entities are present; only documentation text is updated. Changes
Estimated code review effort1 (~2 minutes) Possibly related PRs
Poem
✨ Finishing Touches🧪 Generate unit tests
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. 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
SupportNeed help? Create a ticket on our support page for assistance with any issues or questions. 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
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
![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)
doc/book/insert-update-proofs.html (1)
178-181: Consider fixing heading typo “Adherance”.Line 179 still shows “Adherance to application-specific guidelines”. For consistency with the markdown source (“Adherence”), update the HTML output on the next doc rebuild.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (5)
doc/book/crypto-intro/merkle-trees.html(1 hunks)doc/book/insert-update-proofs.html(1 hunks)doc/book/print.html(2 hunks)doc/src/crypto-intro/merkle-trees.md(1 hunks)doc/src/insert-update-proofs.md(1 hunks)
🧠 Learnings (3)
doc/src/insert-update-proofs.md (2)
Learnt from: distractedm1nd
PR: #146
File: crates/common/src/tree.rs:114-126
Timestamp: 2024-11-01T07:52:07.324Z
Learning: In UpdateProof::verify within crates/common/src/tree.rs, the old_hashchain and hashchain_after_update are different hashchains, so caching their serialized values is not feasible.
Learnt from: distractedm1nd
PR: #381
File: crates/node_types/prover/src/prover_engine/sp1_prover.rs:146-152
Timestamp: 2025-07-11T11:09:35.000Z
Learning: In the recursive prover in crates/node_types/prover/src/prover_engine/sp1_prover.rs, it's correct to use the compressed proof from prev_epoch.stark for verification while using the public values from prev_epoch.snark.public_values for state continuity in the recursive proof chain. This is intentional design where STARK and SNARK proofs serve different purposes.
doc/book/insert-update-proofs.html (1)
Learnt from: distractedm1nd
PR: #146
File: crates/common/src/tree.rs:114-126
Timestamp: 2024-11-01T07:52:07.324Z
Learning: In UpdateProof::verify within crates/common/src/tree.rs, the old_hashchain and hashchain_after_update are different hashchains, so caching their serialized values is not feasible.
doc/book/print.html (1)
Learnt from: distractedm1nd
PR: #146
File: crates/common/src/tree.rs:114-126
Timestamp: 2024-11-01T07:52:07.324Z
Learning: In UpdateProof::verify within crates/common/src/tree.rs, the old_hashchain and hashchain_after_update are different hashchains, so caching their serialized values is not feasible.
🧰 Additional context used
🧠 Learnings (3)
doc/src/insert-update-proofs.md (2)
Learnt from: distractedm1nd
PR: #146
File: crates/common/src/tree.rs:114-126
Timestamp: 2024-11-01T07:52:07.324Z
Learning: In UpdateProof::verify within crates/common/src/tree.rs, the old_hashchain and hashchain_after_update are different hashchains, so caching their serialized values is not feasible.
Learnt from: distractedm1nd
PR: #381
File: crates/node_types/prover/src/prover_engine/sp1_prover.rs:146-152
Timestamp: 2025-07-11T11:09:35.000Z
Learning: In the recursive prover in crates/node_types/prover/src/prover_engine/sp1_prover.rs, it's correct to use the compressed proof from prev_epoch.stark for verification while using the public values from prev_epoch.snark.public_values for state continuity in the recursive proof chain. This is intentional design where STARK and SNARK proofs serve different purposes.
doc/book/insert-update-proofs.html (1)
Learnt from: distractedm1nd
PR: #146
File: crates/common/src/tree.rs:114-126
Timestamp: 2024-11-01T07:52:07.324Z
Learning: In UpdateProof::verify within crates/common/src/tree.rs, the old_hashchain and hashchain_after_update are different hashchains, so caching their serialized values is not feasible.
doc/book/print.html (1)
Learnt from: distractedm1nd
PR: #146
File: crates/common/src/tree.rs:114-126
Timestamp: 2024-11-01T07:52:07.324Z
Learning: In UpdateProof::verify within crates/common/src/tree.rs, the old_hashchain and hashchain_after_update are different hashchains, so caching their serialized values is not feasible.
🔇 Additional comments (6)
doc/src/insert-update-proofs.md (1)
49-50: Typo fixed correctly; no further action required.Replacing “effeciency” with “efficiency” clarifies the sentence and aligns terminology across docs.
doc/book/insert-update-proofs.html (1)
211-213: Documentation spelling corrected; looks good.The updated wording improves professionalism and consistency.
doc/src/crypto-intro/merkle-trees.md (1)
11-12: Spelling correction acknowledged.Changing “ouput” → “output” removes distraction; nothing else to address.
doc/book/crypto-intro/merkle-trees.html (1)
184-185: HTML copy reflects corrected spelling; good to merge.The fix propagates the correct term to the generated book.
doc/book/print.html (2)
390-394: Typo fix acknowledged – “efficiency” is now spelled correctly.
Nothing else to flag here.
951-955: Typo fix acknowledged – “output” is now spelled correctly.
No further issues in this block.
fix some minor issues in comments
Summary by CodeRabbit