📝 Add docstrings to canary

[coderabbitai]

Docstrings generation was requested by @supervoidcoder.

• sync upstream  #2 (comment)

The following files were modified:

• blocksuite/affine/blocks/note/src/configs/slash-menu.ts
• blocksuite/affine/data-view/src/core/group-by/compare-date-keys.ts
• blocksuite/affine/data-view/src/core/group-by/define.ts
• blocksuite/affine/data-view/src/core/group-by/trait.ts
• blocksuite/affine/shared/src/adapters/pdf/css-utils.ts
• blocksuite/affine/shared/src/adapters/pdf/delta-converter.ts
• blocksuite/affine/shared/src/adapters/pdf/image-utils.ts
• blocksuite/affine/shared/src/adapters/pdf/svg-utils.ts
• blocksuite/affine/shared/src/adapters/pdf/utils.ts
• blocksuite/affine/shared/src/utils/number-prefix.ts
• blocksuite/affine/widgets/linked-doc/src/transformers/pdf.ts
• packages/backend/native/src/doc.rs
• packages/backend/server/src/core/utils/blocksuite.ts
• packages/common/native/src/doc_parser.rs
• packages/frontend/core/src/bootstrap/cleanup.ts
• packages/frontend/core/src/components/hooks/affine/use-export-page.ts
• packages/frontend/media-capture-playground/web/components/saved-recording-item.tsx
• tests/kit/src/utils/keyboard.ts

These files were ignored

• blocksuite/affine/all/src/__tests__/adapters/pdf.unit.spec.ts
• blocksuite/affine/data-view/src/__tests__/compare-date-keys.unit.spec.ts
• packages/backend/server/src/core/utils/__tests__/blocksute.spec.ts
• tests/blocksuite/e2e/database/selection.spec.ts
• tests/blocksuite/e2e/slash-menu.spec.ts

These file types are not supported

• .github/actions/server-test-env/action.yml
• .github/workflows/build-images.yml
• .github/workflows/build-test.yml
• blocksuite/affine/shared/package.json
• docs/developing-server.md
• package.json
• packages/backend/native/Cargo.toml
• packages/backend/server/package.json
• packages/backend/server/src/__tests__/e2e/doc-service/__snapshots__/controller.spec.ts.md
• packages/backend/server/src/core/doc/__tests__/__snapshots__/reader-from-database.spec.ts.md
• packages/backend/server/src/core/doc/__tests__/__snapshots__/reader-from-rpc.spec.ts.md
• packages/backend/server/src/core/utils/__tests__/__snapshots__/blocksute.spec.ts.md
• packages/backend/server/tsconfig.json
• packages/frontend/apps/electron/package.json
• rust-toolchain.toml

ℹ️ Note

CodeRabbit cannot perform edits on its own pull requests yet.

[coderabbitai]

Important

Review skipped

CodeRabbit bot authored PR detected.

To trigger a single review, invoke the @coderabbitai review command.

You can disable this status message by setting the reviews.review_status to false in the CodeRabbit configuration file.

---

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

[wellcode-ai]

🔍 General Code Quality Feedback

🔍 Comprehensive Code Review

Consolidated Feedback

• 🔍 Code Review Analysis

Overall Assessment: The PR significantly enhances the documentation of the codebase by adding docstrings to various functions and modules. This improves code readability and maintainability. However, the changes are extensive, and while they are generally positive, there are some areas that require attention before merging.

Critical Issues:

• Issue 1: Inconsistent Documentation Style → Some docstrings follow a different format than others, which can lead to confusion. For example, some functions have detailed descriptions while others are brief. Actionable solution: Standardize the docstring format across all files. Consider using a template that includes sections for parameters, return values, and examples consistently.

• Issue 2: Missing Tests for New Functionality → The PR does not include any new tests for the functions that have been documented. This could lead to untested code paths. Actionable solution: Add unit tests for the newly documented functions to ensure they behave as expected. For instance, if a function is added to parse a document, ensure there are tests that validate its output against various input scenarios.

Improvements:

• Suggestion 1: Improve Parameter Descriptions → Some parameter descriptions are vague. For example, in parseDocToMarkdown, the parameter doc_bin could be described more explicitly. How to implement: Update the docstring to clarify what the expected format of doc_bin is and any constraints on its content.

• Suggestion 2: Add Return Value Descriptions → In several functions, the return values are not clearly described. For instance, in getImagePlaceholder, the return value should specify what the placeholder text looks like. How to implement: Ensure that every function's docstring includes a clear description of what is returned, including any edge cases.

Positive Notes:

• The addition of docstrings is a commendable effort to improve code documentation, which is crucial for maintainability and onboarding new developers. The examples provided in the docstrings are particularly helpful for understanding usage.

Next Steps:

1. Standardize Docstring Format: Review all docstrings and ensure they follow a consistent format across the codebase.
2. Add Unit Tests: Implement unit tests for all functions that have been documented in this PR to ensure their correctness.
3. Enhance Parameter and Return Descriptions: Go through the docstrings and improve the clarity of parameter and return value descriptions.
4. Conduct a Peer Review: Once the above changes are made, have another team member review the updated documentation and tests for additional feedback.

By addressing these issues and suggestions, the codebase will not only be more maintainable but also more robust against potential bugs and misunderstandings in the future.

🤖 Generated by Wellcode.ai

[supervoidcoder]

oh wow thanks these are lots of docstrings ill go review

[supervoidcoder]

lgtm