Skip to content

docs(drift): draft from internal source#344

Open
pedromcunha wants to merge 1 commit into
mainfrom
docs-drift/src-86a48ebaf4-b7e05da
Open

docs(drift): draft from internal source#344
pedromcunha wants to merge 1 commit into
mainfrom
docs-drift/src-86a48ebaf4-b7e05da

Conversation

@pedromcunha

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Drafted from an internal source repo, requested by @pedromcunha.

This PR was auto-generated by the reusable-docs-draft-pr workflow from a Claude-drafted update in the source repo. It is opened as a draft — please review, edit as needed, and mark ready for review before merging.

Review checklist

  • Content matches the behavior shipped in the source PR
  • No internal-only details (service names, file paths, unreleased names, security internals) leaked into the draft
  • Conforms to CLAUDE.md style rules
  • Cross-references and internal links resolve
  • Any Needs human input items from the source comment are addressed

Generated by reusable-docs-draft-pr.yml in relayprotocol/agents-config.

Requested by @pedromcunha via /publish-docs-pr
@pedromcunha pedromcunha self-assigned this Jun 23, 2026
@mintlify

mintlify Bot commented Jun 23, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Preview deployment for your docs. Learn more about Mintlify Previews.

Project Status Preview Updated (UTC)
unevenlabs 🟢 Ready View Preview Jun 23, 2026, 5:23 PM

💡 Tip: Enable Workflows to automatically generate PRs for you.

@pedromcunha pedromcunha marked this pull request as ready for review June 23, 2026 17:47
@github-actions

github-actions Bot commented Jun 23, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Claude finished @pedromcunha's task in 1m 33s —— View job


Code review — PR #344 (docs drift: slippage tolerance validation)

  • Read changed files in full context
  • Check conformance to CLAUDE.md style rules
  • Verify cross-references / links resolve
  • Check for internal-only leakage
  • Post review feedback

This is a tight, well-formed drift PR. It correctly applies the breaking-change playbook (§4.2): the surface page (handling-errors.mdx) is edited in place, the narrative lives in the changelog, and there's no redundant inline <Warning>. Both changes are accurate against the described behavior and self-consistent (the errorCode string matches between the two files).

Verdict: approve / ready to mark for review. No blocking issues. Two minor style observations below — both optional.


What's correct ✅

  • Changelog format (§4.5): newest-first ordering is right (2026-06-23 sits above 2026-06-10); ## date heading + one-line summary; **Breaking** lead on its own line. Date matches today (absolute, per the convention).
  • Link resolves: [Handling Quote Errors](/references/api/api_core_concepts/handling-errors) is root-relative and points at the real file. ✓
  • Backtick usage (§2.9): code values (slippageTolerance, latePaymentSlippageTolerance, 0, 10000, the error code) are correctly backticked in prose; the table Property-style values follow suit.
  • No internal leakage: "produced refund outcomes downstream" / "removing the minimum-output floor" are behavioral descriptions — no service names, file paths, or internal components. ✓
  • No companion pages missed: I grepped the other 7 files mentioning slippageTolerance. They reference it only as a response object (price-stabilization, etc.) or in unrelated contexts — none document the input validation range, so nothing else needs updating.

Minor observations (optional, non-blocking)

  1. Changelog paragraph length (§2.10). The **Breaking** body is a single 5-sentence paragraph. §2.10 caps paragraphs at 2–3 sentences. That said, the existing entries (e.g. 2026-05-21 Hyperliquid, 2026-06-10 reorg) are comparably dense, so this is consistent with established practice in the file. If you want it to read tighter, the "Previously…" history (sentence 3) and the POST /price 500→400 note (sentence 4) could split into a second paragraph — purely cosmetic.

  2. Error-table cell length (§2.7). The new INVALID_SLIPPAGE_TOLERANCE description is noticeably longer than its neighbors, which §2.7 nudges away from ("keep cell descriptions concise"). It's still a single sentence and the range is the useful bit, so I'd leave it — just flagging the asymmetry.

One thing worth a human glance (not a docs issue): the changelog scopes the change to POST /quote, POST /quote/v2, and POST /price, but the handling-errors.mdx page is framed entirely around /quote/v2 ("When calling the /quote/v2 endpoint…"). The cross-link still works since the error code is documented there, but if /price callers are expected to land on this page, that's the page's existing scope limitation rather than anything this PR introduced.
· docs-drift/src-86a48ebaf4-b7e05da

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.

2 participants