-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 220
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Create OP Stack comparison matrix #1272
Conversation
✅ Deploy Preview for docs-optimism ready!
To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration. |
Warning Rate limit exceeded@sbvegan has exceeded the limit for the number of commits or files that can be reviewed per hour. Please wait 1 minutes and 52 seconds before requesting another review. ⌛ How to resolve this issue?After the wait time has elapsed, a review can be triggered using the We recommend that you space out your commits to avoid hitting the rate limit. 🚦 How do rate limits work?CodeRabbit enforces hourly rate limits for each developer per organization. Our paid plans have higher rate limits than the trial, open-source and free plans. In all cases, we re-allow further reviews after a brief timeout. Please see our FAQ for further information. 📒 Files selected for processing (6)
📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughThe pull request introduces several changes to the OP Stack documentation. A new metadata entry Possibly related PRs
Suggested reviewers
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
|
Due to bandwith issues took this over, linked to source data so we can get this over the line and iterate accordingly |
ty @sbvegan for the review! |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Nitpick comments (3)
pages/stack/interop/op-supervisor.mdx (2)
14-22
: LGTM! The formatting changes improve readability.The bullet point hierarchy effectively presents the blockchain heads and their confidence levels. The technical content is accurate and well-structured.
Consider adding a brief explanation of what "reorgs" means in the finalized head description, as this term might not be familiar to all readers:
- * Finalized (the latest block written to L1, and that L1 block is safe from reorgs) + * Finalized (the latest block written to L1, and that L1 block is safe from reorganizations/reorgs, meaning it cannot be changed or replaced)
55-62
: Fix the sentence spacing in the execution client description.The content accurately describes component interactions. However, there's a formatting issue in the text.
Apply this formatting fix:
- To do this, the execution client looks at every executing message and queries `op-supervisor` to see if there is a corresponding initiating message. + To do this, the execution client looks at every executing message and queries `op-supervisor` to see if there is a corresponding initiating message.🧰 Tools
🪛 LanguageTool
[style] ~56-~56: Consider a more expressive alternative.
Context: ...is sufficiently safe to include. To do this, the execution client looks at eve...(DO_ACHIEVE)
words.txt (1)
200-200
: Standardize technical term formatting.Two observations about newly added terms:
Mgas
- Consider if this should also have a lowercase variant like other similar termsviem's
- This is the only possessive form in the word list. Consider if we should avoid possessive forms for consistencyAlso applies to: 408-408
📜 Review details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (4)
pages/stack/_meta.json
(1 hunks)pages/stack/fact-sheet.mdx
(1 hunks)pages/stack/interop/op-supervisor.mdx
(2 hunks)words.txt
(7 hunks)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (2)
- pages/stack/_meta.json
- pages/stack/fact-sheet.mdx
🧰 Additional context used
📓 Path-based instructions (1)
pages/stack/interop/op-supervisor.mdx (1)
Pattern **/*.mdx
: "ALWAYS review Markdown content THOROUGHLY with the following criteria:
- Use proper nouns in place of personal pronouns like 'We' and 'Our' to maintain consistency in communal documentation.
- Avoid gender-specific language and use the imperative form.
- Monitor capitalization for emphasis. Avoid using all caps, italics, or bold for emphasis.
- Ensure proper nouns are capitalized in sentences.
- Apply the Oxford comma.
- Use proper title case for buttons, tab names, page names, and links. Sentence case should be used for body content and short phrases, even in links.
- Use correct spelling and grammar at all times (IMPORTANT).
- For H1, H2, and H3 headers:
- Use sentence case, capitalizing only the first word.
- Preserve the capitalization of proper nouns, technical terms, and acronyms as defined in the 'nouns.txt' file located in the root directory of the project.
- Do not automatically lowercase words that appear in the 'nouns.txt' file, regardless of their position in the header.
- Flag any headers that seem to inconsistently apply these rules for manual review.
- When reviewing capitalization, always refer to the 'nouns.txt' file for the correct capitalization of proper nouns and technical terms specific to the project.
"
🪛 LanguageTool
pages/stack/interop/op-supervisor.mdx
[style] ~56-~56: Consider a more expressive alternative.
Context: ...is sufficiently safe to include. To do this, the execution client looks at eve...
(DO_ACHIEVE)
words.txt
[duplication] ~2-~2: Möglicher Tippfehler: ein Wort wird wiederholt
Context: ACCOUNTQUEUE accountqueue ACCOUNTSLOTS accountslots ADDI ADDIU ADDU airgap Allnodes Allocs ...
(GERMAN_WORD_REPEAT_RULE)
[duplication] ~38-~38: Möglicher Tippfehler: ein Wort wird wiederholt
Context: ...lockhash blocklists BLOCKLOGS blocklogs BLOCKPROFILERATE blockprofilerate Blockscout Blockspace blockspace blockt...
(GERMAN_WORD_REPEAT_RULE)
[duplication] ~41-~41: Möglicher Tippfehler: ein Wort wird wiederholt
Context: ...PROFILERATE blockprofilerate Blockscout Blockspace blockspace blocktime Blocktimes blocktimes BLOOMFI...
(GERMAN_WORD_REPEAT_RULE)
[duplication] ~44-~44: Möglicher Tippfehler: ein Wort wird wiederholt
Context: ...ckscout Blockspace blockspace blocktime Blocktimes blocktimes BLOOMFILTER bloomfilter BLTZ Bootcamp b...
(GERMAN_WORD_REPEAT_RULE)
[duplication] ~46-~46: Möglicher Tippfehler: ein Wort wird wiederholt
Context: ...ckspace blocktime Blocktimes blocktimes BLOOMFILTER bloomfilter BLTZ Bootcamp bootnode BOOTNODES Bootno...
(GERMAN_WORD_REPEAT_RULE)
[duplication] ~408-~408: Möglicher Tippfehler: ein Wort wird wiederholt
Context: ...e VHOSTS vhosts Viem viem Viem's viem's VMDEBUG vmdebug VMODULE vmodule xlarge XORI xtensibilit...
(GERMAN_WORD_REPEAT_RULE)
[duplication] ~410-~410: Möglicher Tippfehler: ein Wort wird wiederholt
Context: ...Viem viem Viem's viem's VMDEBUG vmdebug VMODULE vmodule xlarge XORI xtensibility ZKPs ZKVM Zora...
(GERMAN_WORD_REPEAT_RULE)
[duplication] ~417-~417: Möglicher Tippfehler: ein Wort wird wiederholt
Context: ...dule xlarge XORI xtensibility ZKPs ZKVM Zora zora
(GERMAN_WORD_REPEAT_RULE)
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (4)
- GitHub Check: Redirect rules - docs-optimism
- GitHub Check: Header rules - docs-optimism
- GitHub Check: Pages changed - docs-optimism
- GitHub Check: pr-workflow
🔇 Additional comments (2)
words.txt (2)
37-38
: Verify the need for both case variations of BLOCKLOGS.The file includes both uppercase
BLOCKLOGS
and lowercaseblocklogs
. While having both cases is common in this file, please verify if both variations are actually used in the codebase.✅ Verification successful
Both BLOCKLOGS case variations are correctly used
Both uppercase and lowercase variations are necessary as they're used in different contexts:
GETH_CACHE_BLOCKLOGS
: Environment variablecache.blocklogs
: Configuration flag and documentation references🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for both case variations of 'blocklogs' in the codebase echo "Searching for uppercase BLOCKLOGS:" rg "BLOCKLOGS" --type-add 'docs:*.{md,mdx}' --type docs echo -e "\nSearching for lowercase blocklogs:" rg "blocklogs" --type-add 'docs:*.{md,mdx}' --type docsLength of output: 702
🧰 Tools
🪛 LanguageTool
[duplication] ~38-~38: Möglicher Tippfehler: ein Wort wird wiederholt
Context: ...lockhash blocklists BLOCKLOGS blocklogs BLOCKPROFILERATE blockprofilerate Blockscout Blockspace blockspace blockt...(GERMAN_WORD_REPEAT_RULE)
361-361
: Verify the technical accuracy of the term "subsecond".The newly added term "subsecond" should be verified for its technical accuracy and usage in the documentation. Consider if it should be "sub-second" instead, which is a more common spelling.
✅ Verification successful
"subsecond" is the correct form for this project
The term "subsecond" is already in use within the project's technical documentation, specifically in the context of blockchain technology. This spelling variant maintains consistency with existing usage.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for both variants to determine which is more commonly used echo "Searching for 'subsecond':" rg "subsecond" --type-add 'docs:*.{md,mdx}' --type docs echo -e "\nSearching for 'sub-second':" rg "sub-second" --type-add 'docs:*.{md,mdx}' --type docsLength of output: 483
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
ty zain!
Highlighting common feature questions