Fix comment formatting for m_helper_basic usage

[sbryngelson]

User description

Description

Summarize your changes and the motivation behind them.

Fixes #(issue)

Type of change

• Bug fix
• New feature
• Refactor
• Documentation
• Other: describe

Testing

How did you test your changes?

Checklist

• I added or updated tests for new behavior
• I updated documentation if user-facing behavior changed

See the developer guide for full coding standards.

GPU changes (expand if you modified src/simulation/)

• GPU results match CPU results
• Tested on NVIDIA GPU or AMD GPU

---

CodeAnt-AI Description

Fix comment wording for m_helper_basic usage in bubble module

What Changed

• Updated the comment in src/simulation/m_bubbles.fpp to clarify the purpose of m_helper_basic
• No functional or runtime behavior was changed; only in-source documentation was modified

Impact

✅ Clearer code comments for developers
✅ Easier onboarding for contributors reading m_bubbles.fpp
✅ No change to runtime behavior

💡 Usage Guide

Checking Your Pull Request

Every time you make a pull request, our system automatically looks through it. We check for security issues, mistakes in how you're setting up your infrastructure, and common code problems. We do this to make sure your changes are solid and won't cause any trouble later.

Talking to CodeAnt AI

Got a question or need a hand with something in your pull request? You can easily get in touch with CodeAnt AI right here. Just type the following in a comment on your pull request, and replace "Your question here" with whatever you want to ask:

@codeant-ai ask: Your question here

This lets you have a chat with CodeAnt AI about your pull request, making it easier to understand and improve your code.

Example

@codeant-ai ask: Can you suggest a safer alternative to storing this secret?

Preserve Org Learnings with CodeAnt

You can record team preferences so CodeAnt AI applies them in future reviews. Reply directly to the specific CodeAnt AI suggestion (in the same thread) and replace "Your feedback here" with your input:

@codeant-ai: Your feedback here

This helps CodeAnt AI learn and adapt to your team's coding style and standards.

Example

@codeant-ai: Do not flag unused imports.

Retrigger review

Ask CodeAnt AI to review the PR again, by typing:

@codeant-ai: review

Check Your Repository Health

To analyze the health of your code repository, visit our dashboard at https://app.codeant.ai. This tool helps you identify potential issues and areas for improvement in your codebase, ensuring your repository maintains high standards of code health.

[codeant-ai]

CodeAnt AI is reviewing your PR.

---

Thanks for using CodeAnt! 🎉

We're free for open-source projects. if you're enjoying it, help us grow by sharing.

Share on X ·
Reddit ·
LinkedIn

[coderabbitai]

Warning

Rate limit exceeded

@sbryngelson has exceeded the limit for the number of commits that can be reviewed per hour. Please wait 8 minutes and 28 seconds before requesting another review.

⌛ How to resolve this issue?

After the wait time has elapsed, a review can be triggered using the @coderabbitai review command as a PR comment. Alternatively, push new commits to this PR.

We recommend that you space out your commits to avoid hitting the rate limit.

🚦 How do rate limits work?

CodeRabbit enforces hourly rate limits for each developer per organization.

Our paid plans have higher rate limits than the trial, open-source and free plans. In all cases, we re-allow further reviews after a brief timeout.

Please see our FAQ for further information.

✨ Finishing Touches

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests
• Post copyable unit tests in a comment

---

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 and usage tips.}

[cubic-dev-ai]

No issues found across 1 file

Confidence score: 5/5

• Automated review surfaced no issues in the provided summaries.
• No files require special attention.

[codeant-ai]

Nitpicks 🔍

🔒 No security issues identified

⚡ Recommended areas for review Module dependency The PR adds "use m_helper_basic" to bring in floating-point comparison helpers (e.g., f_approx_equal). Confirm that the module actually exports the needed symbols and the intended behavior (tolerances, kind handling) matches how the calls in this file use it. Implicit assumptions about tolerance The file uses f_approx_equal in several places. Ensure the tolerance semantics in the helper match the assumptions here (absolute vs relative tolerance, default epsilon). If different tolerances are needed at different call sites, consider passing explicit tolerance or using a site-specific wrapper. Namespace collision A broad "use m_helper_basic" can unintentionally import many symbols into the m_bubbles namespace and may shadow or conflict with local procedures/variables. Verify no name collisions (e.g., generic names like f_is_default, verysmall, threshold_*).

[codeant-ai]

CodeAnt AI finished reviewing your PR.

[Copilot]

Pull request overview

This PR attempts to fix comment formatting for the m_helper_basic module import in m_bubbles.fpp, but actually introduces an error by truncating the standard comment. The change removes the word "numbers" from the end of the comment, creating an incomplete sentence and breaking consistency with the rest of the codebase.

Changes:

• Truncates the use m_helper_basic comment from "Functions to compare floating point numbers" to "Functions to compare floating point"

[Copilot]

The comment for use m_helper_basic has been truncated incorrectly. The comment should be "Functions to compare floating point numbers" to match the convention used throughout the codebase. All other 28 instances of this import across the codebase use the complete comment. The word "numbers" should not be removed.

Suggested change

	use m_helper_basic !< Functions to compare floating point
	use m_helper_basic !< Functions to compare floating point numbers

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 44.05%. Comparing base (df28255) to head (c43e17e).
⚠️ Report is 7 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master    #1244   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   44.05%   44.05%           
=======================================
  Files          70       70           
  Lines       20496    20496           
  Branches     1989     1989           
=======================================
  Hits         9030     9030           
  Misses      10328    10328           
  Partials     1138     1138           

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

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.