fix(profanity.rb): various minor fixes and DR additions

[mrhoribu]

Important

Minor fixes in profanity.rb include multi-argument support for log, removal of unused server lines, and regex handling improvements.

• Behavior:
  • log method in profanity.rb now accepts multiple arguments for logging.
  • Removed server communication lines server.puts "SET_FRONTEND_PID #{Process.pid}" and server.flush.
• Code Quality:
  • Replaced $1 with Regexp.last_match(1) for better regex match handling.
  • Removed redundant newline after Mouse.new instantiation.

^{This description was created by for a3f81ff. You can customize this summary. It will automatically update as commits are pushed.}

[ellipsis-dev]

Important

Looks good to me! 👍

Reviewed everything up to a3f81ff in 8 minutes and 13 seconds. Click for details.

• Reviewed 39 lines of code in 1 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 4 draft comments. View those below.
• Modify your settings and rules to customize what types of comments Ellipsis leaves. And don't forget to react with 👍 or 👎 to teach Ellipsis.

1. profanity.rb:91

• Draft comment:
  Changed the log method to accept a splat of arguments. Verify that logging multiple values (which will be printed as an array) is the intended behavior. Consider joining the arguments if a single-line log output is desired.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50% The comment starts with "Verify that..." which is explicitly against the rules - we should not ask the PR author to verify or confirm their intention. Additionally, the comment makes an incorrect assumption about how the code will behave. When you pass a splat array to puts, it prints each element on a separate line, not the array representation. So the comment is both asking for verification (which violates the rules) and is based on a misunderstanding of Ruby's behavior. There's no clear evidence that this change is wrong - it could be intentional to allow logging multiple lines at once. Perhaps the author did intend to log things as an array representation, or perhaps there are call sites that would break with this change. Without seeing the call sites or having more context, I can't be 100% sure this is wrong. Even if there might be issues at call sites, the comment explicitly asks to "Verify that..." which violates the rules. The comment should either point out a definite problem or be deleted. Since I can't see call sites and the comment is speculative and asks for verification, it should be deleted. Delete this comment. It asks the PR author to verify their intention (violates rules), makes an incorrect assumption about how puts handles arrays, and is speculative rather than pointing out a definite issue.

2. profanity.rb:1885

• Draft comment:
  Replaced use of $1 with Regexp.last_match(1) when capturing XML tag content. This makes the intent more explicit and reduces reliance on global match variables.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

3. profanity.rb:1420

• Draft comment:
  The block handling death (or DR) messages uses a long chain of if/elsif conditions to map message patterns to abbreviated area codes. Consider refactoring this logic into a data‐driven structure (e.g. a hash) to improve clarity and maintainability.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

4. profanity.rb:1246

• Draft comment:
  The background thread updates the shared variable 'skip_server_time_offset' without synchronization. This may lead to race conditions; consider protecting the update with a mutex or using a thread‐safe construct.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was on unchanged code.

Workflow ID: wflow_KkwiHV5gLGDKFaxR

^{You can customize by changing your verbosity settings, reacting with 👍 or 👎, replying to comments, or adding code review rules.}