Refactor/interest

[fulleni]

Status

READY

Description

This pull request focuses on a significant refactoring effort to enhance the clarity and consistency of naming conventions related to interest filtering. By renaming key properties in the Interest and InterestLimits models, the changes aim to explicitly differentiate between general feed filters and those specifically designated as 'pinned' filters. This improves the readability and maintainability of the codebase without altering core functionality.

Type of Change

• ✨ New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• 🛠️ Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• ❌ Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change)
• 🧹 Code refactor
• ✅ Build configuration change
• 📝 Documentation
• 🗑️ Chore

[gemini-code-assist]

Summary of Changes

Hello @fulleni, I'm Gemini Code Assist¹! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed!

This pull request focuses on a significant refactoring effort to enhance the clarity and consistency of naming conventions related to interest filtering. By renaming key properties in the Interest and InterestLimits models, the changes aim to explicitly differentiate between general feed filters and those specifically designated as 'pinned' filters. This improves the readability and maintainability of the codebase without altering core functionality.

Highlights

• Interest Model Refactoring: The isFeedFilter boolean property in the Interest model has been renamed to isPinnedFeedFilter to provide more precise semantic meaning.
• InterestLimits Model Refactoring: The feedFilters integer property within the InterestLimits model has been renamed to pinnedFeedFilters for improved clarity and consistency.
• Codebase-Wide Updates: All relevant parts of the codebase, including documentation, fixture data, generated JSON serialization/deserialization code, and unit tests, have been updated to reflect these naming changes.

Using Gemini Code Assist

The full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips.

Invoking Gemini

You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either /gemini <command> or @gemini-code-assist <command>. Below is a summary of the supported commands on the current page.

Feature	Command	Description
Code Review	/gemini review	Performs a code review for the current pull request in its current state.
Pull Request Summary	/gemini summary	Provides a summary of the current pull request in its current state.
Comment	@gemini-code-assist	Responds in comments when explicitly tagged, both in pull request comments and review comments.
Help	/gemini help	Displays a list of available commands.

Customization

To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a .gemini/ folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be found here.

Limitations & Feedback

Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for Github and other Google products, sign up here.

You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension.

Footnotes

1. Review the Privacy Notices, Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, Terms of Service, and learn how to configure Gemini Code Assist in GitHub here. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it and use code with caution. ↩

[gemini-code-assist]

Code Review

This pull request refactors isFeedFilter to isPinnedFeedFilter and feedFilters to pinnedFeedFilters for better clarity. The changes are consistently applied across the data models, fixtures, generated files, and tests. The refactoring is well-executed. I've only found a very minor grammatical issue in a documentation comment, for which I've left a suggestion.