chore: fix based sequencer terminology in state comments

[pengqima]

Overview

Correct the comments around State.AssertValidSequence when handling a transition from a based sequencer to a normal syncing node.

The comments previously:

• referred to a "base sequencer" instead of the project's established "based sequencer" terminology;
• misspelled headers as ehaders;
• used the grammatically incorrect phrase "a base sequencer have switched."

This change only improves the comments and does not modify validation behavior.

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Documentation
  • Clarified and corrected comments describing synchronization transitions and header-hash mismatch behavior.
  • No functional changes were made.

[coderabbitai]

No actionable comments were generated in the recent review. 🎉

ℹ️ Recent review info

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: defaults

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

Run ID: 5b6db10d-627b-4b7f-8fed-a93d479217d4

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between e437a62 and ea2e325.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• types/state.go

---

📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

Updates an inline comment in State.AssertValidSequence to clarify based-sequencer to syncing-node transitions and correct wording. No executable logic, control flow, or data handling changes.

Changes

State validation documentation

Layer / File(s)	Summary
Clarify sequencer transition comment types/state.go	Corrects spelling and grammar and explains why LastHeaderHash may differ during a based-sequencer-to-syncing-node switch.

Estimated code review effort: 1 (Trivial) | ~2 minutes

Suggested reviewers: tac0turtle

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 5

✅ Passed checks (5 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Title check	✅ Passed	The title clearly summarizes the comment-only terminology fix in state comments.
Description check	✅ Passed	The description follows the template and explains the context, changes, and that validation behavior is unchanged.
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check.
Linked Issues check	✅ Passed	Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request.
Out of Scope Changes check	✅ Passed	Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request.

✨ Finishing Touches

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests

---

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.}