V2

[paul-paliychuk]

Important

Update version to 2.0.1, add fact rating types, modify deleteFact return type, and remove LICENSE file.

• Version Update:
  • Update version to 2.0.1 in package.json and multiple Client.ts files.
• Type and Interface Changes:
  • Add ApidataFactRatingInstruction and ApidataFactRatingExamples types in src/api/types.
  • Update CreateGroupRequest, CreateUserRequest, and UpdateUserRequest to include factRatingInstruction.
• Function Changes:
  • Change return type of deleteFact() in Memory class to Promise<Zep.SuccessResponse>.
• File Deletions:
  • Remove LICENSE file.
• Miscellaneous:
  • Rename SessionFactRatingExamples to ApidataFactRatingExamples and SessionFactRatingInstruction to ApidataFactRatingInstruction.

^{This description was created by for b380824. It will automatically update as commits are pushed.}

[ellipsis-dev]

👍 Looks good to me! Reviewed everything up to b380824 in 1 minute and 41 seconds

More details

• Looked at 1291 lines of code in 32 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 4 drafted comments based on config settings.

1. src/api/types/Fact.ts:10

• Draft comment:
  The fact field is marked as deprecated. Consider removing it or replacing its usage with content to align with the deprecation notice.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was on unchanged code.

2. src/serialization/types/Fact.ts:13

• Draft comment:
  The fact field is marked as deprecated. Consider removing it or replacing its usage with content to align with the deprecation notice.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Marked as duplicate.

3. src/api/types/ApidataFactRatingExamples.ts:5

• Draft comment:
  The ApidataFactRatingExamples interface is a duplicate of the existing FactRatingExamples interface. Consider using the existing interface instead.

• FactRatingExamples.ts

• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable:
  The comment claims duplication with an interface not shown in the diff. Without evidence in the diff or additional context, it's speculative. The comment doesn't provide actionable evidence of an issue directly related to the changes in the diff.
  I might be missing context from other parts of the codebase that could confirm the duplication. However, the task is to focus on the diff provided, and the comment doesn't relate to changes shown in the diff.
  Even if there is duplication elsewhere, the comment doesn't provide evidence within the context of the diff. The focus should remain on the changes presented.
  Delete the comment as it doesn't provide strong evidence of an issue related to the changes in the diff.

4. src/api/types/ApidataFactRatingInstruction.ts:7

• Draft comment:
  The ApidataFactRatingInstruction interface is a duplicate of the existing FactRatingInstruction interface. Consider using the existing interface to avoid redundancy.

• FactRatingInstruction.ts

• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable:
  The comment claims redundancy with another interface, but the diff shows a rename and modification of the interface. Without access to the FactRatingInstruction interface, it's unclear if redundancy exists. The comment might be speculative without strong evidence from the diff itself.
  I might be missing the context of the FactRatingInstruction interface, which could indeed be similar or identical to the renamed interface. The comment could be valid if the interfaces are indeed duplicates.
  Without direct evidence from the diff or the provided context, it's speculative to assume redundancy. The comment should be deleted unless there's clear evidence of duplication in the diff.
  Delete the comment as it lacks strong evidence of redundancy based on the diff and provided context.

Workflow ID: wflow_tUYMcNMlP80WUTJ3

---

You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.