fix: sendoperation error message fixed

[Sam-61s]

Description

• Fixed template literal interpolation in error message at line 98 of SendOperations.js
• Changed from single-quoted string to escaped backtick template literal to properly interpolate ${methodName} variable
• Error messages will now display the actual method name instead of the literal string ${methodName}

Related issue

Fixes #1791

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Chores
  • Improved internal error logging formatting for better code consistency.

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

[changeset-bot[bot]]

⚠️ No Changeset found

Latest commit: 2feb02e7d55b3cce65e2b4a0eef1e10d91be8486

Merging this PR will not cause a version bump for any packages. If these changes should not result in a new version, you're good to go. If these changes should result in a version bump, you need to add a changeset.

This PR includes no changesets

When changesets are added to this PR, you'll see the packages that this PR includes changesets for and the associated semver types

Click here to learn what changesets are, and how to add one.

Click here if you're a maintainer who wants to add a changeset to this PR

[coderabbitai[bot]]

Walkthrough

Fixed an error logging statement in SendOperations.js that incorrectly used template literal syntax within single quotes instead of backticks, preventing the methodName variable from being interpolated in the error message.

Changes

Cohort / File(s)	Summary
Template Literal Fix packages/components/src/components/SendOperations.js	Converted error logging statement from single-quoted string to template literal (backticks) to enable proper interpolation of methodName variable in error message

Estimated code review effort

🎯 1 (Trivial) | ⏱️ ~2 minutes

Pre-merge checks and finishing touches

✅ Passed checks (5 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Description Check	✅ Passed	Check skipped - CodeRabbit’s high-level summary is enabled.
Linked Issues check	✅ Passed	The code change directly addresses the requirement in issue #1791 by converting the single-quoted string with ${methodName} to a template literal with backticks, enabling proper variable interpolation.
Out of Scope Changes check	✅ Passed	The change is focused solely on fixing the error message formatting in SendOperations.js line 98 as specified in issue #1791, with no unrelated modifications.
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check.
Title check	✅ Passed	The title accurately describes the main change: fixing a template literal interpolation issue in the SendOperations.js error message where ${methodName} was not being interpolated.

✨ Finishing touches

• [ ] 📝 Generate docstrings

🧪 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.}

[asyncapi-bot]

What reviewer looks at during PR review

The following are ideal points maintainers look for during review. Reviewing these points yourself beforehand can help streamline the review process and reduce time to merge.

1. PR Title: Use a concise title that follows our Conventional Commits guidelines and clearly summarizes the change using imperative mood (it means spoken or written as if giving a command or instruction, like "add new helper for listing operations")

   Note - In Generator, prepend feat: or fix: in PR title only when PATCH/MINOR release must be triggered.

2. PR Description: Clearly explain the issue being solved, summarize the changes made, and mention the related issue.

   Note - In Generator, we use Maintainers Work board to track progress. Ensure the PR Description includes Resolves #<issue-number> or Fixes #<issue-number> this will automatically close the linked issue when the PR is merged and helps automate the maintainers workflow.

3. Documentation: Update the relevant Generator documentation to accurately reflect the changes introduced in the PR, ensuring users and contributors have up-to-date guidance.

4. Comments and JSDoc: Write clear and consistent JSDoc comments for functions, including parameter types, return values, and error conditions, so others can easily understand and use the code.

5. DRY Code: Ensure the code follows the Don't Repeat Yourself principle. Look out for duplicate logic that can be reused.

6. Test Coverage: Ensure the new code is well-tested with meaningful test cases that pass consistently and cover all relevant edge cases.

7. Commit History: Contributors should avoid force-pushing as much as possible. It makes it harder to track incremental changes and review the latest updates.

8. Template Design Principles Alignment: While reviewing template-related changes in the packages/ directory, ensure they align with the Assumptions and Principles. If any principle feels outdated or no longer applicable, start a discussion these principles are meant to evolve with the project.

9. Reduce Scope When Needed: If an issue or PR feels too large or complex, consider splitting it and creating follow-up issues. Smaller, focused PRs are easier to review and merge.

10. Bot Comments: As reviewers, check that contributors have appropriately addressed comments or suggestions made by automated bots. If there are bot comments the reviewer disagrees with, react to them or mark them as resolved, so the review history remains clear and accurate.

[sonarqubecloud[bot]]

Quality Gate passed

Issues
0 New issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
0.0% Coverage on New Code
0.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarQube Cloud