Skip to content

Fix 1 stale doc comment(s) across 1 file(s) #1034

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

Closed
LasmarKhalifa wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

Fix 1 stale doc comment(s) across 1 file(s) #1034

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion lib/roast/cog/output.rb
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -249,7 +249,7 @@ def extract_number_candidates(input)
candidates.compact.uniq
end

# Normalize a number string by removing separators and currency codes and validating format
# Normalize a number string by removing separators and currency symbols and validating format

@dersam dersam Jul 14, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Inline comment on line 256 has the same stale phrase. The PR correctly fixes the method-level doc comment ("currency codes" → "currency symbols"), but the inline comment inside the method body (# Remove common digit separators and currency codes) has the exact same inaccuracy. Both should be updated together.

@LasmarKhalifa LasmarKhalifa Jul 14, 2026 •
edited
Loading

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I agree. I had originally scoped this to just doc comments, but looking back it makes sense to include inline comments too. I made a few changes to the workflow itself to allow inline comments to be reviewed. I ran the same file on it again and got this PR which now fully fixes the comments! Noramlly, it would have updated the same PR instead of creating a new one, but I changed the branch naming convention since we support inline comments too, which made the new PR appear to be a new branch.

Thanks for flagging this, I think it's the right call to have inline comments being processed in the same workflow!

#
#: (String) -> String?
def normalize_number_string(raw)
Expand Down
Loading