Skip to content

chore: clean-up - #13723

Merged
kgryte merged 1 commit into
developfrom
philipp/fix-commit-review-2026-07-28
Jul 28, 2026
Merged

chore: clean-up#13723
kgryte merged 1 commit into
developfrom
philipp/fix-commit-review-2026-07-28

Conversation

@Planeshifter

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Description

What is the purpose of this pull request?

Follow-up fixes for commits merged to develop between 2026-07-27T14:38:24-07:00 (a8e87a88) and 2026-07-28T04:19:59-07:00 (b0d5d28b).

This pull request:

  • array/uint64:
    • Fixes the iterable branch of Uint64Array.from in lib/node_modules/@stdlib/array/uint64/lib/main.js (introduced 382f2ca): loop bound was len (element count) instead of tmp.length (word count), so only the first half of interleaved high/low words got copied and the rest stayed zero-filled. Bound now matches the constructor's iterable branch; existing tests only checked .length, not values, hence the miss.
    • Fixes guard ordering in isUint64Array (lib/node_modules/@stdlib/array/uint64/lib/main.js, 382f2ca): typeof value === 'object' now runs before .constructor is dereferenced, so undefined no longer throws a raw TypeError and instead falls through to the documented error path. Same pattern already used in array/complex128 and array/bool; brings this helper in line.
    • Fixes a copy-paste error from 382f2ca: lib/node_modules/@stdlib/array/uint64/benchmark/benchmark.set.js line 27 required @stdlib/array/float64 instead of @stdlib/array/uint32, so the %s::typed_array:set benchmark was silently timing a Float64Array source rather than a Uint32Array source. Corrects the require to match the sibling benchmarks in the package.
    • Fixes stray 8* in the @throws comment continuation of Uint64Array.from JSDoc, lib/node_modules/@stdlib/array/uint64/lib/main.js:328, regression from 382f2ca.
    • Removes the stray leading space before the * continuation in the byteLength/byteOffset JSDoc blocks in lib/node_modules/@stdlib/array/uint64/lib/main.js (lines 499, 517), introduced in 382f2ca, to comply with the no-multi-line-comment-indentation rule and match the rest of the file.
    • Fixes a stray double period in the from_array.js JSDoc introduced in 382f2ca (lib/node_modules/@stdlib/array/uint64/lib/from_array.js:33).
    • Removes the duplicate trailing period on the index callback-arg description introduced in 382f2ca; see lib/node_modules/@stdlib/array/uint64/README.md:214.
    • Fixes grammar typo ("an typed array" → "a typed array") introduced in 382f2ca, lib/node_modules/@stdlib/array/uint64/README.md:394 and examples/index.js:39.

Related Issues

Does this pull request have any related issues?

No.

Questions

Any questions for reviewers of this pull request?

No.

Other

Any other information relevant to this pull request? This may include screenshots, references, and/or implementation notes.

Validation. All 25 commits merged to develop in the window were reviewed for bugs and stdlib style-guide compliance (JSDoc format, copyright years, naming, README/repl.txt structure, C style), with new packages compared against established reference packages (array/uint32, array/complex128, number/uint32/base/mul, blas/ext/base/dwxsa, blas/ext/base/dlogspace). The from( iterable ) and set( undefined ) fixes were verified at runtime (from previously returned 1, 2, 0, 0, 0 for a 5-element iterable; it now returns 1, 2, 3, 4, 5). The remaining packages in the window (blas/ext/base/dwxmy, zlogspace, dminheapify, number/uint64/base/mul, number/uint64/base/xor, assert/is-uint64array, ULP test migrations, doc relabelings) checked out clean, including recomputation of documented example values. The CBLAS_INT sa[2]int64_t sa[2] change in blas/ext/base/zcartesian-product (49960a0) was confirmed to be a legitimate fix, not a regression. Subjective concerns and anything requiring changes outside the window's diff were deliberately excluded.

Checklist

Please ensure the following tasks are completed before submitting this pull request.

AI Assistance

When authoring the changes proposed in this PR, did you use any kind of 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 written primarily by Claude Code as part of an automated review of commits merged to develop in the last 24 hours. All changes were verified against the repository state, and the behavioral fixes were validated at runtime. A human maintainer will audit before this PR is marked ready for review.


Generated by Claude Code

@stdlib-bot

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Coverage Report

Package Statements Branches Functions Lines
array/uint64 $\\color{red}1133/1138$
$\\color{green}+99.56\\%$
$\\color{red}176/180$
$\\color{green}+97.78\\%$
$\\color{green}15/15$
$\\color{green}+100.00\\%$
$\\color{red}1133/1138$
$\\color{green}+99.56\\%$

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

@Planeshifter Planeshifter changed the title fix: correct iterable conversion and argument validation in array/uint64 chore: correct iterable conversion and argument validation in array/uint64 Jul 28, 2026
@Planeshifter
Planeshifter marked this pull request as ready for review July 28, 2026 16:25
@Planeshifter
Planeshifter requested review from a team and kgryte July 28, 2026 16:25
@stdlib-bot stdlib-bot added the Needs Review A pull request which needs code review. label Jul 28, 2026
@kgryte kgryte changed the title chore: correct iterable conversion and argument validation in array/uint64 chore: clean-up Jul 28, 2026
@kgryte
kgryte merged commit b9ea7bd into develop Jul 28, 2026
44 checks passed
@kgryte
kgryte deleted the philipp/fix-commit-review-2026-07-28 branch July 28, 2026 20:42
@stdlib-bot stdlib-bot removed the Needs Review A pull request which needs code review. label Jul 28, 2026
@Planeshifter Planeshifter mentioned this pull request Jul 29, 2026
7 tasks
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants