Various annotations#7179
Conversation
|
Warning Review limit reached
Next review available in: 1 minute Enable usage-based reviews in Billing to review now. Otherwise, wait until the next included review is available. How can I continue?After more reviews become available, a review can be triggered using the To avoid repeated limits, reduce automatic review volume by pausing incremental auto-reviews earlier, using label-based review opt-in, excluding WIP or generated PR titles, or requesting reviews manually when the PR is ready. If your team needs uninterrupted high-volume reviews, an organization admin can enable usage-based reviews. How do review limits work?CodeRabbit enforces per-developer PR review limits for each organization. Most developers receive the normal plan review availability. For paid Pro and Pro+ PR reviews, CodeRabbit uses adaptive limits for sustained high-volume activity. When a developer's recent PR review activity reaches the 95th percentile or higher among CodeRabbit users, additional reviews become available more gradually as earlier reviews age out of the rolling window. Please refer docs for additional details. Review details⚙️ Run configurationConfiguration used: defaults Review profile: CHILL Plan: Pro Run ID: 📒 Files selected for processing (2)
📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughThe changes add engine callback and behavior annotations, refine LuaDoc type signatures for several APIs, and add a changelog entry describing the annotation updates. ChangesAnnotation updates
Estimated code review effort: 2 (Simple) | ~10 minutes Suggested labels: Suggested reviewers: 🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 4 | ❌ 1❌ Failed checks (1 inconclusive)
✅ Passed checks (4 passed)
✨ Finishing Touches🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
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. Comment |
a098d16 to
8146338
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.
Inline comments:
In `@lua/system/utils.lua`:
- Around line 356-360: Update the comparator annotation for sortedpairs so its
parameters use the table key type k instead of the unrelated generic T; remove
the unused T generic if it is no longer referenced, while preserving the
existing table and return annotations.
🪄 Autofix (Beta)
Fix all unresolved CodeRabbit comments on this PR:
- Push a commit to this branch (recommended)
- Create a new PR with the fixes
ℹ️ Review info
⚙️ Run configuration
Configuration used: defaults
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
Run ID: b9ba66b9-c443-47fd-b385-48d8d1d8bdd7
📒 Files selected for processing (8)
changelog/snippets/category.7158.mdchangelog/snippets/other.7179.mdengine/Core/Categories.luaengine/Sim.luaengine/Sim/Unit.lualua/maui/group.lualua/sim/Unit.lualua/system/utils.lua
💤 Files with no reviewable changes (1)
- changelog/snippets/category.7158.md
|
The fact that sort functions are in global space is very bad, these must be put into separate module. |
Description of the proposed changes
Some engine stuff and other lua stuff I found while looking around recently.
Testing done on the proposed changes
I tested
OnExtraDamageDealtby setting "Normal" armor type to take 2.0x from "Normal" damage type.Checklist
Summary by CodeRabbit