docs(wasm-dpp): document no-op user fee increase methods on vote transition

[thepastaclaw]

Summary

Add doc comments to the no-op get_user_fee_increase / set_user_fee_increase methods on MasternodeVoteTransitionWasm, explaining they exist for API compatibility and are intentionally no-ops.

This addresses a CodeRabbit nitpick from #3183.

Validation

• cargo check -p wasm-dpp — compiles clean.
• Doc-only change, no behavior change.

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Documentation
  • Added clarification that user fee increases are not supported for Masternode vote transitions.

[thepastaclaw]

@coderabbitai review

[coderabbitai]

✅ Actions performed

Review triggered.

Note: CodeRabbit is an incremental review system and does not re-review already reviewed commits. This command is applicable only when automatic reviews are paused.

[coderabbitai]

Important

Review skipped

Draft detected.

Please check the settings in the CodeRabbit UI or the .coderabbit.yaml file in this repository. To trigger a single review, invoke the @coderabbitai review command.

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: defaults

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

Run ID: 1ecd7949-956b-43e1-88c5-4d9ecf4836e7

You can disable this status message by setting the reviews.review_status to false in the CodeRabbit configuration file.

Use the checkbox below for a quick retry:

• 🔍 Trigger review

📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

Added inline documentation to the Masternode vote transition module clarifying that user fee increase operations are not supported, while maintaining existing API behavior and zero-return semantics. No functional changes.

Changes

Cohort / File(s)	Summary
Documentation Addition packages/wasm-dpp/src/voting/state_transition/masternode_vote_transition/mod.rs	Added 3 lines of inline comments clarifying that get_user_fee_increase and set_user_fee_increase do not support fee increases for Masternode vote transitions, documenting existing API compatibility behavior.

Estimated code review effort

🎯 1 (Trivial) | ⏱️ ~2 minutes

Poem

🐰 With carrots and clarity, I hop with glee,
Docs now tell the tale of what won't be,
Fee increases rest, our masternode vote stands tall,
Three lines of wisdom explain it all! 📝

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 3

✅ 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 accurately describes the main change: adding documentation to no-op user fee increase methods on the Masternode vote transition in wasm-dpp.
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	Docstring coverage is 100.00% which is sufficient. The required threshold is 80.00%.

_{✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings.}

✨ Finishing Touches

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests
• Post copyable unit tests in a comment

---

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.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.}

[coderabbitai]

🧹 Nitpick comments (1)

packages/wasm-dpp/src/voting/state_transition/masternode_vote_transition/mod.rs (1)

226-230: Documentation clearly explains the no-op behavior.

The doc comment accurately describes that this method always returns 0 because Masternode vote transitions don't support user fee increases. The implementation matches the documentation.

Optional: Consider mentioning API compatibility for consistency

The setter's documentation mentions "API compatibility" explicitly. For consistency, you could optionally expand the getter's doc comment:

-/// Masternode vote transitions do not support user fee increase; always returns 0.
+/// Masternode vote transitions do not support user fee increase; always returns 0.
+/// This method is kept for API compatibility.

This is purely a style suggestion for consistency between getter and setter documentation.

🤖 Prompt for AI Agents

Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed.

In
`@packages/wasm-dpp/src/voting/state_transition/masternode_vote_transition/mod.rs`
around lines 226 - 230, The method get_user_fee_increase currently correctly
returns 0 and matches the doc comment; to address the optional consistency
suggestion, update the doc comment above get_user_fee_increase to mirror the
setter's wording by mentioning API compatibility (e.g., "For API compatibility,
Masternode vote transitions do not support user fee increase; always returns
0."), leaving the implementation of pub fn get_user_fee_increase(&self) -> u16 {
0 } unchanged.

🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents

Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed.

Nitpick comments:
In
`@packages/wasm-dpp/src/voting/state_transition/masternode_vote_transition/mod.rs`:
- Around line 226-230: The method get_user_fee_increase currently correctly
returns 0 and matches the doc comment; to address the optional consistency
suggestion, update the doc comment above get_user_fee_increase to mirror the
setter's wording by mentioning API compatibility (e.g., "For API compatibility,
Masternode vote transitions do not support user fee increase; always returns
0."), leaving the implementation of pub fn get_user_fee_increase(&self) -> u16 {
0 } unchanged.

---

ℹ️ Review info

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: defaults

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

Run ID: 9cb0b033-dd57-4093-8df7-9a87908d0211

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between c3e0a83 and 377ed8a.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• packages/wasm-dpp/src/voting/state_transition/masternode_vote_transition/mod.rs