Open
Conversation
tn0vak
requested review from
0xrusowsky,
DaniPopes,
grandizzy,
klkvr,
mattsse,
onbjerg and
zerosnacks
as code owners
This file contains hidden or 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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
The
stdJsondocs currently use a generic<json_path>placeholder, but the API actually expects the same selector syntax asvm.parseJson*. The existing tests already show the real usage with.afor a field and$for the root object intest/StdJson.t.sol, so the current comments are easy to misread.This updates the
StdJsonexamples and function docs to match the behavior that is already implemented and tested today. It is a comment-only change with no ABI or runtime impact, just a documentation fix that makes the interface clearer and more accurate.