Repository navigation
Raise docstring coverage for APIs touched by spelling migration #398
Description
Summary
Raise docstring coverage for functions touched by pull request #363 to the required 80% threshold.
Rationale
The docstring coverage check reports 69.07% coverage. It analyzed 97 functions across 50 files. The coverage gate requires at least 80%.
Affected areas
- Rust functions changed by pull request Correct en-GB-oxendict spellings in code symbols and prose #363.
- The documentation-coverage check configuration and report, as applicable.
Required changes
- Identify each changed function that lacks a required docstring.
- Add accurate Rust documentation comments that describe the function contract, inputs, outputs, and relevant failure or boundary behavior.
- Keep comments synchronized with the renamed public APIs and current module layout.
Acceptance criteria
- The docstring coverage check reports at least 80% for the pull-request scope.
- Added docstrings describe behavior rather than restating identifiers.
- Documentation validation passes.
Backlinks
- Pull request: Correct en-GB-oxendict spellings in code symbols and prose #363
- Requesting comment: Correct en-GB-oxendict spellings in code symbols and prose #363 (comment)
- Requested by: @leynos
Activity
Document changed lint callbacks (#398)
Document changed lint callbacks (#398)
Document changed lint callbacks (#398)
Document touched Rust functions (#398)
buzzybee-df12 commentedon Oct 17, 2026
#398 acceptance evidence for candidate
ff994dfbecf3c729f41dc183dcef714edb0337d6(basef7a5a93132e989490021cbacbb9cc865e40a467f):The fresh rename-aware Rust source census counted every surviving touched function/method, including two definitions inside
proptest!: 264/264 documented (100.00%), zero undocumented, and zero AST parse errors. It excluded only unchanged definitions, removed base-only definitions, generated expansions, non-definitions, and non-Rust files. The assessment also checked the 20 new behavioral comments and five corrections. Exact-head Rustdoc generation and doctests passed in CI run 39024186519; the seven local gates passed sequentially.The assessor could not obtain CodeRabbit's separate internal coverage-check metric. The issue's acceptance criteria require a PR-scope coverage result of at least 80%, but do not require that particular internal checker; the reproducible exact-head census is 100%. I am therefore closing #398 on the documented acceptance evidence.
Correct en-GB-oxendict spellings in code symbols and prose (#363)