core: clarify dns javadoc/test about trailing path segments

[jdcormie]

No description provided.

[gemini-code-assist]

Summary of Changes

Hello @jdcormie, 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 enhancing the clarity and future maintainability of the DNS name resolution component. It refines the documentation to precisely define the expected URI structure for DNS targets and marks an existing test with a TODO to address a known behavior regarding trailing path segments, signaling a potential area for future enforcement.

Highlights

• Javadoc Clarification: The Javadoc for DnsNameResolverProvider has been updated to explicitly state that the target URI must contain "exactly one path segment" for DNS resolution, providing clearer guidance on URI formatting.
• Test Annotation: A TODO comment has been added to the newNameResolver_toleratesTrailingPathSegments test, highlighting that trailing path segments should ideally be forbidden and noting that the test currently demonstrates consistent behavior across different newNameResolver() overloads despite this.

🧠 New Feature in Public Preview: You can now enable Memory to help Gemini Code Assist learn from your team's feedback. This makes future code reviews more consistent and personalized to your project's style. Click here to enable Memory in your admin console.

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 Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, 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 clarifies the behavior of DnsNameResolverProvider concerning trailing path segments in the target URI. The Javadoc has been updated to state that exactly one path segment is expected, which makes the intended API contract clearer. Additionally, a new test has been added to demonstrate that the current implementation tolerates extra path segments, correctly identifying this as a bug with a TODO comment. These changes are well-executed and improve the codebase by explicitly documenting the intended behavior and tracking the existing deviation. The changes look good.

[ejona86]

(We're working on getting Gemini Code Assist to settle down. I'm quite disappointed, honestly; it wrote far more than the PR itself, so was obviously a net negative with its defaults and simple PRs.)

[jdcormie]

(We're working on getting Gemini Code Assist to settle down. I'm quite disappointed, honestly; it wrote far more than the PR itself, so was obviously a net negative with its defaults and simple PRs.)

Haha yeah it does seem quite chatty. I've had great results with the critique integration though so I'm optimistic you'll turn it net positive in github.

[ejona86]

I'm not holding my breath. I saw the value in the critique one. Even if it was never happy, it pointed out things that could be improved and was terse. I'm going to let others (in other repos) invest the time to get this one useful.