docs: fix wording in the perimeters documentation#1032
Conversation
… Copilot Autofix Co-authored-by: Copilot Autofix powered by AI <223894421+github-code-quality[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
… Copilot Autofix Co-authored-by: Copilot Autofix powered by AI <223894421+github-code-quality[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
|
No actionable comments were generated in the recent review. 🎉 ℹ️ Recent review info⚙️ Run configurationConfiguration used: Organization UI Review profile: CHILL Plan: Pro Run ID: 📒 Files selected for processing (2)
✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (1)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
WalkthroughUpdated documentation to replace "edge styles" with "perimeters" in PerimeterRegistry-related content and migration notes; adjusted a conditional phrasing from "if you are intended to use it" to "if you intend to use it"; a minor phrasing change in the EdgeStyleRegistry callout from "has then been removed" to "has since been removed." Changes
Estimated code review effort🎯 1 (Trivial) | ⏱️ ~2 minutes Possibly related PRs
🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 2 | ❌ 1❌ Failed checks (1 warning)
✅ Passed checks (2 passed)
✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings. 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. Comment |
Co-authored-by: Thomas Bouffard <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: coderabbitai[bot] <136622811+coderabbitai[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
|



Also update the "edge styles" page for consistency.
Notes
This PR applies 2/2 suggestions from code quality AI findings.
Summary by CodeRabbit