docs: correct Data and FilterPostpone comments

[luangucun]

Overview

• Correct the Data.New comment to match its return type.
• Clarify that FilterPostpone can result from exceeding either the size or gas limit.

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Documentation
  • Clarified that valid transactions may be postponed for exceeding either a size or gas limit.
  • Updated the Data.New description to accurately state that it returns a new Data.
  • These documentation updates do not change application behavior.

[coderabbitai]

No actionable comments were generated in the recent review. 🎉

ℹ️ Recent review info

⚙️ Run configuration

• Configuration used: defaults
• Review profile: CHILL
• Plan: Advanced
• Run ID: f5ec63b5-016d-4e4f-a450-11d203c6882b

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between a64ea55 and d1a8fe5.

📒 Files selected for processing: 2

• core/execution/execution.go
• types/data.go

Included review availability: This review used your included allowance. Your plan provides up to 2 included reviews per hour; 1 remain after this review.

📝 Walkthrough

Two comments were corrected. The FilterPostpone comment now mentions size and gas limits. The Data.New comment now describes returning a new Data.

Changes: Comment updates

Layer / File(s)	Summary
Corrected API comments core/execution/execution.go, types/data.go	The FilterPostpone comment now includes size and gas limits. The Data.New comment now describes returning a new Data. No executable behavior changed.

Priority: ⬇️ Low

Estimated code review effort: 1 (Trivial) | ~3 minutes

Change: Other

Merge Risk: ⚪ Minimal · up to d1a8f

The documentation changes accurately describe the relevant behavior, with no material merge risk identified.

Pre-merge checks: 5

Passed checks: 5 passed

Check name	Status	Explanation
Title check		The title clearly identifies the documentation changes to the Data and FilterPostpone comments. It is concise and follows the expected semantic format.
Description check		The description includes the required Overview section and clearly states the two documentation corrections. It provides sufficient context for this small documentation-only change.
Docstring Coverage		Docstring coverage is 100.00% which is sufficient. The required threshold is 80.00%. Docstring coverage is scoped to functions touched by this diff. Analyzed 1 functions across 2 files.
Linked Issues check		Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request.
Out of Scope Changes check		Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request.

✨ Finishing Touches: 💡 1

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create a new PR

🛠️ Fix failing CI checks: 💡

• Commit to this branch
• Create a new PR

• Autofix · Keep fixing CodeRabbit findings and required CI, and resolving merge conflicts

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.}

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 69.56%. Comparing base (a64ea55) to head (d1a8fe5).

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #3482      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   69.53%   69.56%   +0.02%     
==========================================
  Files         121      121              
  Lines       12037    12037              
==========================================
+ Hits         8370     8373       +3     
+ Misses       3667     3664       -3     

Flag	Coverage Δ
combined	69.56% <ø> (+0.02%)	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.