[DRAFT/EXAMPLE] Cleaner interface split for ServerClusterInterface #37791
Conversation
This file contains 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
|
Review changes with |
github-actions
bot
added
documentation
|
/gemini summary |
|
/gemini review |
Summary of ChangesThis pull request aims to improve the interface for Highlights
ChangelogClick here to see the changelog
Activity
|
![gemini-code-assist[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/956858?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Code Review
This pull request introduces a cleaner interface split for ServerClusterInterface. The changes look good overall, but I have a few suggestions for improvement, particularly around consistency and documentation.
Summary of Findings
- Method Naming Consistency: The renaming of
InvoketoInvokeCommandshould be consistently applied across all relevant interfaces and implementations to avoid confusion. - Code Coverage: Ensure adequate unit tests are added or updated to cover the new
DefaultServerClusterclass and its functionalities. - Error Code Documentation: Provide a clear explanation of when the new
CHIP_ERROR_IN_USEerror code should be used.
Assessment
The pull request introduces a cleaner interface split for ServerClusterInterface, aiming to reduce intrusiveness and improve modularity. The changes include renaming a method, adding a new error code, and introducing a DefaultServerCluster class. While the changes seem well-structured, there are a few areas that could benefit from further clarification or refinement. I recommend addressing the comments before merging, and users should have others review and approve this code before merging.
andy31415
dismissed
gemini-code-assist[bot]’s stale review
Unsure about the comments: asks for coverage and coverage is quite good. The only addressable one may be the better details on error code meaning.
|
PR #37791: Size comparison from a8e2ae5 to ae9ddf7 Full report (73 builds for bl602, bl702, bl702l, cc13x4_26x4, cc32xx, cyw30739, efr32, esp32, linux, nrfconnect, nxp, psoc6, qpg, stm32, telink, tizen)
|
|
Closing: this was merged back into #37541 |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
This is a more "clean interface" version of #37541:
This uses slightly more RAM since the linked list is not intrusive: uses heap instead of BSS and 4 bytes extra per cluster. However this may be ok since small devices will have less than 20 clusters.
Testing
Covered by unit tests. Test coverage for new code is 100%: