lint errors for v6

[thedavidmeister]

Motivation

Solution

Checks

By submitting this for review, I'm confirming I've done the following:

• made this PR as small as possible
• unit-tested any new functionality
• linked any relevant issues or PRs
• included screenshots (if this involves a front-end change)

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Refactor
  • Optimized error definition handling for improved code organization.

_{✏️ Tip: You can customize this high-level summary in your review settings.}

[coderabbitai]

Walkthrough

The pull request refactors error handling in the IOrderBookV6 interface by removing ZeroMaximumInput and NoOrders from imported symbols and declaring them directly as error types within the interface itself.

Changes

Cohort / File(s)	Summary
Interface Error Declarations src/interface/unstable/IOrderBookV6.sol	Removed ZeroMaximumInput and NoOrders from imports; added them as inline error declarations with documentation comments

Estimated code review effort

🎯 1 (Trivial) | ⏱️ ~3 minutes

Possibly related PRs

• v6 update int #46 — Also modifies IOrderBookV6.sol by adding error declarations (ZeroVaultId), part of the same error definition refactoring pattern

Pre-merge checks and finishing touches

❌ Failed checks (1 inconclusive)

Check name	Status	Explanation	Resolution
Title check	❓ Inconclusive	The title 'lint errors for v6' is vague and generic. It uses a non-descriptive term ('lint errors') without clarifying what specific changes were made to the codebase.	Revise the title to be more specific, such as 'Move error declarations from imports to interface in IOrderBookV6' to clearly describe the actual code changes made.

✅ Passed checks (2 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Description Check	✅ Passed	Check skipped - CodeRabbit’s high-level summary is enabled.
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check.

✨ Finishing touches

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests
• Post copyable unit tests in a comment
• Commit unit tests in branch 2025-12-29-error

---

📜 Recent review details

Configuration used: Organization UI

Review profile: ASSERTIVE

Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between ab90e74 and e499550.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• src/interface/unstable/IOrderBookV6.sol

⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms. You can increase the timeout in your CodeRabbit configuration to a maximum of 15 minutes (900000ms). (3)

• GitHub Check: standard-tests (ubuntu-latest, rainix-sol-static)
• GitHub Check: standard-tests (ubuntu-latest, rainix-sol-legal)
• GitHub Check: standard-tests (ubuntu-latest, rainix-sol-test)

🔇 Additional comments (1)

src/interface/unstable/IOrderBookV6.sol (1)

219-223: The error declarations are syntactically correct and introduce no breaking changes.

The errors ZeroMaximumInput and NoOrders are properly declared and documented in V6. Verification confirms these errors are not natively part of IOrderBookV5.sol (V5 only imports them from IOrderBookV4.sol with unused-import lint disable), no other contracts import them from V5, and the local declarations in V6 follow the established pattern without creating conflicts or dependencies.

---

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.}

[github-actions]

@coderabbitai assess this PR size classification for the totality of the PR with the following criterias and report it in your comment:

S/M/L PR Classification Guidelines:

This guide helps classify merged pull requests by effort and complexity rather than just line count. The goal is to assess the difficulty and scope of changes after they have been completed.

Small (S)

Characteristics:

• Simple bug fixes, typos, or minor refactoring
• Single-purpose changes affecting 1-2 files
• Documentation updates
• Configuration tweaks
• Changes that require minimal context to review

Review Effort: Would have taken 5-10 minutes

Examples:

• Fix typo in variable name
• Update README with new instructions
• Adjust configuration values
• Simple one-line bug fixes
• Import statement cleanup

Medium (M)

Characteristics:

• Feature additions or enhancements
• Refactoring that touches multiple files but maintains existing behavior
• Breaking changes with backward compatibility
• Changes requiring some domain knowledge to review

Review Effort: Would have taken 15-30 minutes

Examples:

• Add new feature or component
• Refactor common utility functions
• Update dependencies with minor breaking changes
• Add new component with tests
• Performance optimizations
• More complex bug fixes

Large (L)

Characteristics:

• Major feature implementations
• Breaking changes or API redesigns
• Complex refactoring across multiple modules
• New architectural patterns or significant design changes
• Changes requiring deep context and multiple review rounds

Review Effort: Would have taken 45+ minutes

Examples:

• Complete new feature with frontend/backend changes
• Protocol upgrades or breaking changes
• Major architectural refactoring
• Framework or technology upgrades

Additional Factors to Consider

When deciding between sizes, also consider:

• Test coverage impact: More comprehensive test changes lean toward larger classification
• Risk level: Changes to critical systems bump up a size category
• Team familiarity: Novel patterns or technologies increase complexity

Notes:

• the assessment must be for the totality of the PR, that means comparing the base branch to the last commit of the PR
• the assessment output must be exactly one of: S, M or L (single-line comment) in format of: SIZE={S/M/L}
• do not include any additional text, only the size classification
• your assessment comment must not include tips or additional sections
• do NOT tag me or anyone else on your comment

[coderabbitai]

Tip

For best results, initiate chat on the files or code changes.

SIZE=S