docs: fix typo (n-06)

[glihm]

A transaction hash showing the behavior on Sepolia:
0xee9e5900239cf8d9c7f5cb5e67c814edcdd6e90d6eceefa342ffb5304ff892

Some code to reproduce (on the Cairo test runner, it runs as expected):

#[starknet::contract]
mod c1 {
    use starknet::ClassHash;

    #[storage]
    struct Storage {}
    
    #[event]
    #[derive(Drop, starknet::Event)]
    pub enum Event {
        Syscalled: Syscalled,
    }

    #[derive(Drop, starknet::Event)]
    pub struct Syscalled {
        pub success: bool,
    }

    #[abi(per_item)]
    #[generate_trait]
    impl Impl1 of Impl1Trait {
        #[external(v0)]
        fn call_f2(ref self: ContractState, class_hash: ClassHash) {
            let success = match starknet::syscalls::library_call_syscall(
                class_hash, selector!("f2"), [].span(),
            ) {
                Result::Ok(_) => true,
                Result::Err(_) => false,
            };

            self.emit(Syscalled { success });
        }
    }
}

#[starknet::contract]
mod c2 {
    #[storage]
    struct Storage {}

    #[abi(per_item)]
    #[generate_trait]
    impl Impl1 of Impl1Trait {
        #[external(v0)]
        fn f2(ref self: ContractState) {            
        }
    }    
}

#[starknet::contract]
mod c3 {
    #[storage]
    struct Storage {}
}

#[cfg(test)]
mod tests {
    use super::{c1, c2, c3};
    use starknet::ContractAddress;

    type TestClassHash = felt252;

    fn deploy_contract(class_hash: TestClassHash) -> ContractAddress {
        let salt = core::testing::get_available_gas();

        let (addr, _) = starknet::syscalls::deploy_syscall(
            class_hash.try_into().unwrap(),
            salt.into(),
            [].span(),
            true
        )
            .unwrap();
    
        addr
    }

    #[test]
    fn success() {
        let c1 = deploy_contract(c1::TEST_CLASS_HASH);

        let _ = starknet::syscalls::call_contract_syscall(
            c1,
            selector!("call_f2"),
            [c2::TEST_CLASS_HASH.try_into().unwrap()].span(),
        )
            .expect('call_f2 on c1 should succeed');

        let event = starknet::testing::pop_log::<c1::Event>(c1).expect('c1 should emit Syscalled');

        if let c1::Event::Syscalled(syscalled) = event {
            assert!(syscalled.success);
        } else {
            panic!("event should be Syscalled");
        }
    }

    #[test]
    fn fail() {
        let c1 = deploy_contract(c1::TEST_CLASS_HASH);

        let _ = starknet::syscalls::call_contract_syscall(
            c1,
            selector!("call_f2"),
            [c3::TEST_CLASS_HASH.try_into().unwrap()].span(),
        )
            .expect('call_f2 on c1 should fail');

        let event = starknet::testing::pop_log::<c1::Event>(c1).expect('c1 should emit Syscalled');

        if let c1::Event::Syscalled(syscalled) = event {
            assert!(!syscalled.success);
        } else {
            panic!("event should be Syscalled");
        }
    }
}

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Documentation
  • Updated comments for clarity regarding the behavior of the upgrade method on public networks.
  • Enhanced explanations of the match statement's functionality in the context of the upgradeable module.

[coderabbitai]

Walkthrough

Ohayo, sensei! This pull request updates the comments in the upgrade method of the Upgradeable implementation within the upgradeable.cairo file. The changes clarify the behavior of the match statement when a syscall fails, specifically noting that such failures lead to transaction failures on StarkNet. Importantly, there are no changes to the method's logic or functionality, as all assertions and error handling remain unchanged.

Changes

File Path	Change Summary
crates/dojo/core/src/contract/components/...	Updated comments in the upgrade method to clarify behavior regarding syscall failures. No logic changes were made.

Sequence Diagram(s)

sequenceDiagram
    participant Caller
    participant Upgradeable
    participant Library

    Caller->>Upgradeable: Call upgrade()
    Upgradeable->>Library: library_call_syscall()
    Library-->>Upgradeable: Result
    Upgradeable->>Caller: Return success or panic

Loading

---

📜 Recent review details

Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 9ca6caf and ef0f47c.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• crates/dojo/core/src/contract/components/upgradeable.cairo (1 hunks)

🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)

• crates/dojo/core/src/contract/components/upgradeable.cairo

---

🪧 Tips

Chat

There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:

• Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by CodeRabbit. Example:
  • I pushed a fix in commit <commit_id>, please review it.
  • Generate unit testing code for this file.
  • Open a follow-up GitHub issue for this discussion.
• Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab): Tag @coderabbitai in a new review comment at the desired location with your query. Examples:
  • @coderabbitai generate unit testing code for this file.
  • @coderabbitai modularize this function.
• PR comments: Tag @coderabbitai in a new PR comment to ask questions about the PR branch. For the best results, please provide a very specific query, as very limited context is provided in this mode. Examples:
  • @coderabbitai gather interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table. Additionally, render a pie chart showing the language distribution in the codebase.
  • @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and generate unit testing code.
  • @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.
  • @coderabbitai help me debug CodeRabbit configuration file.

Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments.

CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)

• @coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
• @coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
• @coderabbitai review to trigger an incremental review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
• @coderabbitai full review to do a full review from scratch and review all the files again.
• @coderabbitai summary to regenerate the summary of the PR.
• @coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
• @coderabbitai configuration to show the current CodeRabbit configuration for the repository.
• @coderabbitai help to get help.

Other keywords and placeholders

• Add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.
• Add @coderabbitai summary to generate the high-level summary at a specific location in the PR description.
• Add @coderabbitai anywhere in the PR title to generate the title automatically.

Documentation and Community

• Visit our Documentation for detailed information on how to use CodeRabbit.
• Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.
• Follow us on X/Twitter for updates and announcements.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 57.07%. Comparing base (24964ce) to head (ef0f47c).
Report is 19 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #2641      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   56.90%   57.07%   +0.16%     
==========================================
  Files         397      399       +2     
  Lines       49461    49661     +200     
==========================================
+ Hits        28148    28343     +195     
- Misses      21313    21318       +5     

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