refactor: rename share to chunk

[rootulp]

Closes #215

I opted to use chunk instead of share because @musalbas preferred it and chunk already appears in the exported API of this library (e.g. ValidateChunkSize, MaxChunks).

Technically Shares is in the public API too (it's a field of ErrByzantineData) but this PR doesn't introduce any breaking changes b/c IMO it's not worth breaking API over this name change.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: 9 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Comparison is base (d6c118c) 80.89% compared to head (5223ae4) 82.24%.
Report is 7 commits behind head on main.

Files	Patch %	Lines
extendeddatacrossword.go	80.95%	7 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
leopard.go	83.33%	0 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #299      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   80.89%   82.24%   +1.34%     
==========================================
  Files           8        7       -1     
  Lines         869      614     -255     
==========================================
- Hits          703      505     -198     
+ Misses        119       66      -53     
+ Partials       47       43       -4     

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

[musalbas]

What about celestia-node, celestia-app, and other repos?
Cc @renaynay @Wondertan

[rootulp]

celestia-node has ~183 occurrences of share and ~4 for chunk. celestia-app almost always uses shares and not chunk. I had a preference for share but you preferred chunk. See #262 (comment).

[musalbas]

If share is overwhelmingly used more than chunk then I'm not against using share

[musalbas]

But in this repo it seems that chunk is used more than share?

[rootulp]

This repo is split. 188 occurrences of chunk and 300 occurrences of share. I still lean slightly towards share because usage in downstream repos but not strongly opinionated on it. Can do whichever reviewers prefer.

[musalbas]

Wonder what Celestia node API uses. I also do think it seems people say share more than chunks

…

On Wed, 21 Feb 2024, 22:47 Rootul P, ***@***.***> wrote: This repo is split. 188 occurrences of chunk and 300 occurrences of share. I still lean slightly towards share because usage in downstream repos but not strongly opinionated on it. Can do whichever reviewers prefer. — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#299 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABGOEBP3FTKU6GUANXC47SDYUZTNNAVCNFSM6AAAAABDTZA5W6VHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMYTSNJYGAZDOOBZGQ> . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[rootulp]

celestia-node API uses share: https://node-rpc-docs.celestia.org/?version=v0.13.0#share. I don't see instances of chunk in those docs.

[musalbas]

If most apis and docs use share I'd guess it makes more sense to use share in the code

…

On Wed, 21 Feb 2024, 22:51 Rootul P, ***@***.***> wrote: celestia-node API uses share: https://node-rpc-docs.celestia.org/?version=v0.13.0#share. I don't see instances of chunk in those docs. — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#299 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABGOEBICMEB3UUX7SRH6UQ3YUZT5HAVCNFSM6AAAAABDTZA5W6VHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMYTSNJYGAZTSOBWGI> . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[rootulp]

Agreed, can do.