Conversation
Signed-off-by: Todd Baert <todd.baert@dynatrace.com>
Summary of ChangesHello @toddbaert, I'm Gemini Code Assist1! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed! This pull request aims to enhance the clarity of the project's documentation by refining the definition of "Rule" within the glossary. The change makes the explanation more straightforward and accessible, improving the overall readability and comprehension of key terminology. Highlights
Changelog
Using Gemini Code AssistThe full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips. Invoking Gemini You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either
Customization To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a Limitations & Feedback Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for Github and other Google products, sign up here. You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension. Footnotes
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Code Review
This pull request improves the definition of a 'rule' in the glossary for better clarity. The new definition is more aligned with the terminology used elsewhere in the specification. I've suggested a minor wording tweak to make the definition even more concise and use a more active voice.
Co-authored-by: gemini-code-assist[bot] <176961590+gemini-code-assist[bot]@users.noreply.github.com> Signed-off-by: Todd Baert <todd.baert@dynatrace.com>
This wasn't really incorrect, but it was a bit tough to understand, IMO.