docs: correct vault lifecycle comment

[kosedogus]

The Vault doc comment stated the lifecycle is exactly new -> share or new -> destroy, which reads as if share is terminal. A shared vault can still be destroyed later at teardown, so the comment now states the creating-transaction constraint (consume the fresh vault with share or destroy) and the full new -> share -> ... -> destroy shape. Comment-only.

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Documentation
  • Clarified the vault lifecycle description to show that a vault can now be created, shared, and later destroyed.
  • Updated wording to better explain the full set of supported vault states and transitions.

[coderabbitai]

No actionable comments were generated in the recent review. 🎉

ℹ️ Recent review info

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

Run ID: fb1888c6-addb-434a-b955-d6eaa7f58fc9

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 6965c0b and 05e4094.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• contracts/allowance/sources/spend_vault.move

---

📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

This change updates the module documentation comment for the Vault struct in spend_vault.move, revising the described lifecycle to new -> destroy or new -> share -> ... -> destroy, clarifying that a shared vault can later be destroyed.

Changes

Vault Documentation Update

Layer / File(s)	Summary
Vault lifecycle documentation contracts/allowance/sources/spend_vault.move	Reworded the Vault struct doc comment to describe the lifecycle as new -> destroy or new -> share -> ... -> destroy, permitting destruction of a shared vault.

Estimated code review effort: 1 (Trivial) | ~2 minutes

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 5

✅ Passed checks (5 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Title check	✅ Passed	The title clearly and concisely describes the comment-only vault lifecycle documentation fix.
Description check	✅ Passed	The description explains the issue, the corrected lifecycle wording, and the comment-only scope.
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check.
Linked Issues check	✅ Passed	Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request.
Out of Scope Changes check	✅ Passed	Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request.

✨ Finishing Touches

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests
• Commit unit tests in branch fix/vault-lifecycle-comment

---

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

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

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 96.68%. Comparing base (6965c0b) to head (05e4094).

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #462      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   96.59%   96.68%   +0.08%     
==========================================
  Files          34       34              
  Lines        3405     3405              
  Branches      794      794              
==========================================
+ Hits         3289     3292       +3     
  Misses         70       70              
+ Partials       46       43       -3     

Flag	Coverage Δ
contracts/access	65.46% <ø> (ø)
contracts/allowance	52.40% <100.00%> (ø)
contracts/finance	26.07% <ø> (ø)
contracts/timelock	54.57% <ø> (ø)
contracts/utils	44.09% <ø> (ø)
math/core	87.12% <ø> (+0.22%)	⬆️
math/fixed_point	63.70% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.