rename zero maximum io error

[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
  • Updated error naming in the order book interface for improved consistency.

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

[coderabbitai]

Walkthrough

The change renames an error definition in the IOrderBookV6 interface from ZeroMaximumInput() to ZeroMaximumIO(). This is a straightforward identifier change with no functional or semantic modifications to the error behavior.

Changes

Cohort / File(s)	Summary
Error Definition Update src/interface/unstable/IOrderBookV6.sol	Renamed error from ZeroMaximumInput() to ZeroMaximumIO()

Estimated code review effort

🎯 1 (Trivial) | ⏱️ ~2 minutes

Possibly related PRs

• lint errors for v6 #47: Adds/modifies the ZeroMaximumIO error definition in the same interface area, directly related to this error renaming.

Pre-merge checks and finishing touches

✅ Passed checks (3 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Description Check	✅ Passed	Check skipped - CodeRabbit’s high-level summary is enabled.
Title check	✅ Passed	The title 'rename zero maximum io error' directly and accurately reflects the main change: renaming the error from ZeroMaximumInput() to ZeroMaximumIO() in the IOrderBookV6 interface.
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 617319d and c7a9b7c.

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

🔇 Additional comments (1)

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

219-220: Semantic improvement: error name now aligns with config field naming.

The rename from ZeroMaximumInput() to ZeroMaximumIO() is more accurate and consistent with the TakeOrdersConfigV5.maximumIO field. The comment already uses "input/output" terminology, improving clarity. The old error name is appropriately preserved in deprecated v3 and v4 interfaces for backward compatibility, while the unstable v6 interface uses the improved naming.

---

_{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.

🧩 Analysis chain

🏁 Script executed:

#!/bin/bash
# Get the full diff stats for the PR to assess totality of changes
gh pr view 48 --json files --jq '.files[] | "\(.path): +\(.additions) -\(.deletions)"'

# Get the full diff to see the actual changes
gh pr diff 48

# Count total files changed
gh pr view 48 --json files --jq '.files | length'

Length of output: 614

---

SIZE=S