docs: fix stale put(String) builder signature#203
Merged
Conversation
The Chunk builder row still read put(String column, Object data) but the method has taken ColumnName since #200. A survey of backticked method-signature claims (prompted by the #202 review) surfaced it; #202 fixed the fenced .put snippets but missed this reference table row. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
This file contains hidden or 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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
One-line straggler continuing the #201/#202 review thread.
The
Chunkbuilder table inreference.mdstill documentedput(String column, Object data), but the method has takenColumnNamesince #200. #202 fixed the fenced.put(...)snippets but missed this table row; a survey of backticked method-signature claims (done while considering whetherDocsConsistencyTestcould be taught to catch this class of drift) surfaced it.Note on the fitness function: I looked at generalizing
DocsConsistencyTestto verify receiver-less signature claims against real overloads, but the docs carry many illustrative signatures (decode(ctx, layout, dtype),slice(offset, length),getDouble("col")) that are intentionally informal — a strict matcher would be all false positives. Not worth it; fixing the real drift is the proportionate move.🤖 Generated with Claude Code