fix: correct InterpreterCallerMeta.desc doc comment and 'feild' typos

[thedavidmeister]

Closes #196.

InterpreterCallerMeta.desc carried a copy-paste of abi_name's doc comment —
"Name of the caller corresponding to contractName feild in the abi." — which
describes abi_name, not a free-text description field. Both comments spelled
"field" as "feild".

These doc comments are consumer-visible, not only rustdoc: schema_for! in
crates/cli/src/cli/schema/show.rs emits them as the description of each
property in the JSON schema that rain-metadata schema show prints for
interpreter-caller-v1.

• abi_name: typo fix only, the comment was already accurate for the field it
  is on.
• desc: replaced with a description of the field it is on, in the same shape
  as the sibling alias comment ("Alias of the caller used by Rainlang.").

Doc-only. No behaviour, validation or wire-format change; no test touched.

Relation to the other in-flight work on this file

Four other open issues target crates/cli/src/meta/types/interpreter_caller/v1.rs.
None overlaps these two lines, and none blocks or is blocked by this:

• Method.expressions permits an empty array despite 'at least one expression' docs #167 — Method.expressions permits an empty array. PR fix: require at least one expression per InterpreterCallerMeta method #240 (open) adds
  #[validate(length(min = 1))] on the Method struct.
• InterpreterCallerMeta::try_from(RainMetaDocumentV1Item) ignores the item's magic, accepting a mismatched intent signal #194 — TryFrom<RainMetaDocumentV1Item> ignores item.magic. PR gate OpMeta and InterpreterCallerMeta item conversions on magic #242
  (open, closes OpMeta and InterpreterCallerMeta TryFrom<RainMetaDocumentV1Item> accept items of any magic #165) adds the magic gate inside that impl block.
• Expression.context_columns capped at 255 while ContextColumn.cells is unbounded — u8 addressing suggests 256 and a matching cells cap #198 and InterpreterCallerMeta: context_columns cap length(max = u8::MAX) rejects 256 columns — off-by-one if the intent is u8-addressable column indices #221 — the context_columns u8::MAX cap and the unbounded
  ContextColumn.cells axis, both awaiting a domain ruling; no PR yet. They
  land on the Expression / ContextColumn structs.

This PR touches only the two doc-comment lines inside the InterpreterCallerMeta
struct, so it merges cleanly with all four in any order.

QA

• Discriminating tests: n/a — the diff changes only doc-comment text. Nothing in
  the suite asserts these strings (grep -rn "Name of the caller corresponding\|feild"
  matched only the two lines changed), and a doc comment is not observable to a
  Rust test; its only consumer surface is schema show output and rustdoc. A
  test that pinned the prose would pin the thing being corrected, not behaviour.
• Mutations applied: n/a — a docs-only diff has no executable line to mutate.
• Oracle: the field's own declaration and the issue as filed — pub desc: Description
  with #[serde(default)], a RainString free-text field, against a comment
  saying "Name of the caller corresponding to contractName", which is verbatim
  the comment on abi_name: SolidityIdentifier three lines above. The
  replacement's shape comes from the sibling alias comment, not from the code
  under change.
• Category check: issue asks (a) desc's comment describes a different field,
  (b) feild typo on the desc comment, (c) feild typo on the abi_name
  comment. Covered a, b, c — and grep -rn feild over the repo now returns
  nothing, so no other instance was left behind.

Also run under nix develop: cargo test -p rain-metadata --lib interpreter_caller
— 19 passed, 0 failed; cargo fmt --check -p rain-metadata — clean. The full
suite was not run locally by request.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

[coderabbitai]

Warning

Review limit reached

Next included review available in 58 minutes.

View limit details

Limit details: You’ve used the included review currently available.

You've used all free OSS reviews for now. Wait for the free limit to reset to keep reviewing this public repository.

Learn how review limits work.

Review configuration:

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Organization UI

Review profile: ASSERTIVE

Plan: Pro Plus

Run ID: 948fba0e-455d-43dc-a716-5ac87737dd69

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between c7752aa and bca5a12.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• crates/cli/src/meta/types/interpreter_caller/v1.rs

---

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

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

[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