Skip to content

docs: correct JSDoc return value in math/base/tools/chebyshev-seriesf#11584

Merged
kgryte merged 1 commit intodevelopfrom
philipp/fix-commit-review-2026-04-19
Apr 19, 2026
Merged

docs: correct JSDoc return value in math/base/tools/chebyshev-seriesf#11584
kgryte merged 1 commit intodevelopfrom
philipp/fix-commit-review-2026-04-19

Conversation

@Planeshifter
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@Planeshifter Planeshifter commented Apr 19, 2026

Description

Follow-up fix for commits merged to develop between dcba41a4 (2026-04-19 01:48 UTC) and aaa6e064 (2026-04-19 12:05 UTC) — 66 first-parent commits reviewed.

This pull request:

  • math/base/tools/chebyshev-seriesf — Fixes the // returns 0.5 annotation on the polyval( 0.0 ) example in lib/factory.js and lib/index.js (introduced in 2d1c3d6); with c = [1.0, 0.5], the Clenshaw recurrence yields 0.5 * (b0 - b2) = 0.25. The doctest harness missed this because its extractor regex doesn't tolerate a trailing inline comment between the ; and the newline (the example carries // 1*T_0(0) + 0.5*T_1(0) after the ;), so the example is skipped rather than executed.

Related Issues

No.

Questions

No.

Other

Validation. Four reviewer agents (two style, two bugs) audited the 66-commit diff:

  • Code-style compliance vs. sibling reference packages (chebyshev-series, dnancount, snancount, svariance, scopy, etc.).
  • Bug scan limited to the introduced code; each finding cross-checked by re-reading the diff.

Checklist

AI Assistance

  • Yes
  • No

If you answered "yes" above, how did you use AI assistance?

  • Code generation (e.g., when writing an implementation or fixing a bug)
  • Test/benchmark generation
  • Documentation (including examples)
  • Research and understanding

Disclosure

This PR was authored by Claude (Opus 4.7) under my review: automated reviewers audited the 24h develop window, I triaged their findings for high signal (dropping anything subjective or requiring out-of-window scope), and applied the surviving documentation-only fix. I also manually verified the actual return value.


@stdlib-js/reviewers

The JSDoc example for `polyval(0.0)` with `c = [1.0, 0.5]` stated `// returns 0.5`; the Clenshaw recurrence actually yields `0.25`.

https://claude.ai/code/session_01Wc7anvQg6Kbepdy1xXNMM1
@stdlib-bot
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

stdlib-bot commented Apr 19, 2026

Coverage Report

Package Statements Branches Functions Lines
math/base/tools/chebyshev-seriesf $\color{green}300/300$
$\color{green}+0.00%$
$\color{green}20/20$
$\color{green}+0.00%$
$\color{green}3/3$
$\color{green}+0.00%$
$\color{green}300/300$
$\color{green}+0.00%$

The above coverage report was generated for the changes in this PR.

@Planeshifter Planeshifter force-pushed the philipp/fix-commit-review-2026-04-19 branch from b9b2610 to a9b2a29 Compare April 19, 2026 17:08
@stdlib-bot stdlib-bot added the Math Issue or pull request specific to math functionality. label Apr 19, 2026
@Planeshifter Planeshifter changed the title docs: follow-up fixes for 2026-04-19 develop commit window docs: correct JSDoc return value in math/base/tools/chebyshev-seriesf Apr 19, 2026
@Planeshifter Planeshifter marked this pull request as ready for review April 19, 2026 21:05
@Planeshifter Planeshifter requested review from a team and kgryte April 19, 2026 21:05
@stdlib-bot stdlib-bot added the Needs Review A pull request which needs code review. label Apr 19, 2026
@kgryte kgryte removed the Needs Review A pull request which needs code review. label Apr 19, 2026
@kgryte
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

kgryte commented Apr 19, 2026

@Planeshifter I am guessing this applies to math/base/tools/chebyshev-series, as well.

@kgryte kgryte merged commit 59cfc31 into develop Apr 19, 2026
65 checks passed
@kgryte kgryte deleted the philipp/fix-commit-review-2026-04-19 branch April 19, 2026 21:50
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

Math Issue or pull request specific to math functionality.

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants