chore: fix some function name in comment

[lvyaoting]

Proposed changes

fix some function name in comment

Checklist

• Pull request is created against the dev branch
• All checks passed (lint, unit/integration/regression tests etc.) with my changes
• I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works
• I have added necessary documentation (if appropriate)

Summary by CodeRabbit

• New Features

  • Renamed functions for clarity: GenerateVariables to GenerateVariablesWithContextArgs and RunNucleiArgsAndGetResults to RunNucleiWithArgsAndGetResults.
  • Added ProbeURL method to the inputLivenessChecker struct for enhanced functionality.

• Bug Fixes

  • Updated return types for ProbeURL function to include error handling.

• Documentation

  • Improved comments to clarify function purposes and visibility changes.

[coderabbitai]

Walkthrough

The changes in this pull request involve renaming functions for improved clarity and modifying function signatures to reflect their updated roles. Specifically, GenerateVariables was renamed to GenerateVariablesWithContextArgs, and RunNucleiArgsAndGetResults was renamed to RunNucleiWithArgsAndGetResults. Additionally, the ProbeURL function's visibility was changed to exported, and it was also added as a method to the inputLivenessChecker struct, with a modified return type. The overall functionality and internal logic of these functions remain unchanged.

Changes

File Path	Change Summary
pkg/protocols/utils/variables.go	Renamed GenerateVariables to GenerateVariablesWithContextArgs; no logic changes.
pkg/testutils/integration.go	Renamed RunNucleiArgsAndGetResults to RunNucleiWithArgsAndGetResults; no logic changes.
pkg/utils/http_probe.go	Changed ProbeURL to exported and added as a method to inputLivenessChecker; updated return type.

Poem

In the code where rabbits play,
Names are changed to light the way.
Functions hop with clearer grace,
Each one finds its rightful place.
With context here and args in hand,
Our code now sings, oh so grand! 🐇✨

---

Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media?

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

🪧 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.

CodeRabbit Configuration File (.coderabbit.yaml)

• You can programmatically configure CodeRabbit by adding a .coderabbit.yaml file to the root of your repository.
• Please see the configuration documentation for more information.
• If your editor has YAML language server enabled, you can add the path at the top of this file to enable auto-completion and validation: # yaml-language-server: $schema=https://coderabbit.ai/integrations/schema.v2.json

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.

[coderabbitai]

Actionable comments posted: 0

🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (2)

pkg/utils/http_probe.go (1)

Line range hint 42-44: Consider improving error handling in ProbeURL method

The method currently always returns nil for the error, which doesn't properly reflect potential failures from the underlying ProbeURL function call.

Consider this implementation:

-func (i *inputLivenessChecker) ProbeURL(input string) (string, error) {
-    return ProbeURL(input, i.client), nil
+func (i *inputLivenessChecker) ProbeURL(input string) (string, error) {
+    if result := ProbeURL(input, i.client); result != "" {
+        return result, nil
+    }
+    return "", fmt.Errorf("failed to probe URL: %s", input)
+}

pkg/testutils/integration.go (1)

97-98: Consider enhancing the function comment

While the function name change is good, the comment could be more descriptive about the function's purpose and parameters.

Consider updating the comment to:

-// RunNucleiWithArgsAndGetResults returns result,and runtime errors
+// RunNucleiWithArgsAndGetResults executes nuclei with the provided arguments and
+// returns the execution results and any runtime errors that occurred.

📜 Review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 2549592 and a6b5b1d.

📒 Files selected for processing (3)

• pkg/protocols/utils/variables.go (1 hunks)
• pkg/testutils/integration.go (1 hunks)
• pkg/utils/http_probe.go (1 hunks)

🔇 Additional comments (2)

pkg/utils/http_probe.go (1)

16-19: LGTM: Comment aligns with Go's exported function conventions

The comment for the exported ProbeURL function follows Go's documentation standards.

pkg/protocols/utils/variables.go (1)

59-60: LGTM: Function name and comment accurately reflect the purpose

The renaming to GenerateVariablesWithContextArgs better describes the function's specific use case with context arguments.