Skip to content

chore: correct jsdoc location for function used as parameters #33507

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom
Merged
danielroe merged 1 commit into from
Oct 17, 2025
Merged

chore: correct jsdoc location for function used as parameters #33507

danielroe merged 1 commit into from
Oct 17, 2025

Conversation

@KazariEX
Copy link
Member

@KazariEX KazariEX commented Oct 17, 2025

No description provided.

@KazariEX KazariEX requested a review from danielroe as a code owner October 17, 2025 15:18
@bolt-new-by-stackblitz
Copy link

bolt-new-by-stackblitz bot commented Oct 17, 2025

Review PR in StackBlitz Codeflow Run & review this pull request in StackBlitz Codeflow.

@coderabbitai
Copy link

coderabbitai bot commented Oct 17, 2025 •
edited
Loading

Walkthrough

A JSDoc parameter annotation was added inline to the exported default cache driver function declaration, marking the opts.base parameter as optional. The JSDoc comment was repositioned from external documentation into the function parameter list within the defineDriver call. No changes to runtime logic, control flow, or behaviour were introduced.

Estimated code review effort

🎯 1 (Trivial) | ⏱️ ~3 minutes

Rationale: Single file modification with purely cosmetic and type annotation adjustments. No logic alterations, control flow changes, or behavioural impacts. The change involves adding optional parameter documentation and restructuring existing documentation comments.

Pre-merge checks and finishing touches

❌ Failed checks (1 inconclusive)
Check name Status Explanation Resolution
Description Check ❓ Inconclusive No pull request description was provided by the author. According to the criteria, a description should be related to the changeset in some way, though the check is notably lenient and does not require extensive detail. However, when no description exists at all, it becomes ambiguous whether this satisfies the pass criterion of being "related in some way" versus failing for not describing any part of the changeset. The absence of content creates insufficient information to conclusively determine whether the check passes or fails under the specified criteria. Consider adding a brief pull request description that explains the rationale for correcting the JSDoc location. Even a single sentence clarifying why this change improves the code documentation would provide helpful context and definitively satisfy the description check requirement.
✅ Passed checks (2 passed)
Check name Status Explanation
Title Check ✅ Passed The pull request title "chore: correct jsdoc location for function used as parameters" clearly and accurately reflects the main change in the changeset. The summary shows that the JSDoc has been moved inline into the defineDriver call and adjusted to mark opts.base as optional, which is precisely what the title describes — a correction of JSDoc location for a function parameter. The title is specific and concise, avoiding vague language, and directly identifies the nature of the modification being made.
Docstring Coverage ✅ Passed No functions found in the changes. Docstring coverage check skipped.
✨ Finishing touches
  • 📝 Generate docstrings
🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
  • Create PR with unit tests
  • Post copyable unit tests in a comment
📜 Recent review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 39dd9b6 and 35b34a9.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)
  • packages/nitro-server/src/runtime/utils/cache-driver.js (1 hunks)
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms. You can increase the timeout in your CodeRabbit configuration to a maximum of 15 minutes (900000ms). (2)
  • GitHub Check: code
  • GitHub Check: build
🔇 Additional comments (1)
packages/nitro-server/src/runtime/utils/cache-driver.js (1)

12-36: The review comment is incorrect. The base parameter is always provided at instantiation.

The storage configuration in packages/nitro-server/src/index.ts explicitly provides the base parameter (base: cacheDir) when the driver is instantiated. Therefore, opts.base will never be undefined at runtime, and fsDriver will always receive a valid base value. The JSDoc annotation correctly marks base as optional for the API contract, but the actual callsite ensures it is always defined. The code is safe as written.

Likely an incorrect or invalid review comment.

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.

❤️ Share

Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.

danielroe
danielroe reviewed Oct 17, 2025
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@danielroe danielroe left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

❤️

@pkg-pr-new
Copy link

pkg-pr-new bot commented Oct 17, 2025

Open in StackBlitz

@nuxt/kit

npm i https://pkg.pr.new/@nuxt/kit@33507

nuxt

npm i https://pkg.pr.new/nuxt@33507

@nuxt/rspack-builder

npm i https://pkg.pr.new/@nuxt/rspack-builder@33507

@nuxt/schema

npm i https://pkg.pr.new/@nuxt/schema@33507

@nuxt/vite-builder

npm i https://pkg.pr.new/@nuxt/vite-builder@33507

@nuxt/webpack-builder

npm i https://pkg.pr.new/@nuxt/webpack-builder@33507

commit: 35b34a9

@codspeed-hq
Copy link

codspeed-hq bot commented Oct 17, 2025

CodSpeed Performance Report

Merging #33507 will not alter performance

Comparing KazariEX:chore/cache-driver-jsdoc (35b34a9) with main (b399de2)1

Summary

✅ 10 untouched

Footnotes

  1. No successful run was found on main (39dd9b6) during the generation of this report, so b399de2 was used instead as the comparison base. There might be some changes unrelated to this pull request in this report. ↩

@danielroe danielroe merged commit 1f69d1e into nuxt:main Oct 17, 2025
98 of 101 checks passed
@github-actions github-actions bot mentioned this pull request Oct 17, 2025
Merged
@KazariEX KazariEX deleted the chore/cache-driver-jsdoc branch October 17, 2025 20:41
@github-actions github-actions bot mentioned this pull request Oct 23, 2025
Closed
danielroe pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 25, 2025
@KazariEX @danielroe
chore: correct jsdoc location for function used as parameters (#33507)
6856a17
@github-actions github-actions bot mentioned this pull request Oct 25, 2025
Merged
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@danielroe danielroe danielroe left review comments

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

4.x chore

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants

@KazariEX @danielroe