docs(fvm): fix transaction verifier comment

[zloglevel]

Correct the grammar and spelling in the FVM transaction-verifier comment so it reads “all accounts provide enough weights.”

This is a comment-only change; account weights and verification behavior are untouched.

---

^{Need help on this PR? Tag @codesmith-bot with what you need. Autofix is disabled.}

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Documentation
  • Corrected a typo in the TransactionVerifier documentation comment.
  • Clarified the wording describing account weight requirements.

[coderabbitai]

No actionable comments were generated in the recent review. 🎉

ℹ️ Recent review info

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: defaults

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro Plus

Run ID: e1add127-1358-43db-9bf2-3794cdb1e39f

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 7b1c658 and fe86e86.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• fvm/transactionVerifier.go

Included review availability: Your plan provides up to 4 included reviews per hour; 3 remain after this review.

---

📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

The pull request corrects a spelling and grammar error in the TransactionVerifier documentation comment. No functional code changes were made.

Changes

TransactionVerifier documentation

Layer / File(s)	Summary
Correct TransactionVerifier comment fvm/transactionVerifier.go	The comment now states that all accounts “provide enough weights.”

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

Merge Risk: ⚪ Minimal · up to fe86e

This PR corrects wording in a documentation comment only; account weights and transaction verification behavior are unchanged, so no actionable merge-blocking risk remains.

Suggested reviewers: turbolent

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 5

✅ Passed checks (5 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Description Check	✅ Passed	Check skipped - CodeRabbit’s high-level summary is enabled.
Title check	✅ Passed	The title clearly and concisely describes the comment-only documentation fix in the transaction verifier.
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check. Docstring coverage is scoped to functions touched by this diff. Analyzed 0 functions across 1…
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.

Full details: Docstring Coverage

Explanation

No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check. Docstring coverage is scoped to functions touched by this diff. Analyzed 0 functions across 1 files.

✨ 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.}

[zloglevel]

@turbolent Could you please take a look when you have a chance? Thanks!