refactor(event): cleanup getter methods

[Molter73]

Description

This is a small refactor done ahead of #1059, cleaning up getters in the FileData type by using better pattern matching. The Rename variant is also streamlined by using a struct variant instead of a tuple holding RenameFileData.

Checklist

• Patch has a change log entry OR does not need one.
• Investigated and inspected CI test results
• Updated documentation accordingly

Automated testing

• Added unit tests
• Added integration tests
• Added regression tests

If any of these don't apply, please comment below.

Testing Performed

CI is enough.

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Refactor
  • Updated rename event data handling to use separate new and old file details.
  • Improved consistency when reading, updating, comparing, and exporting rename events.
  • Removed the previously exposed rename-specific wrapper type.

[coderabbitai]

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 5

✅ Passed checks (5 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
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.
Title check	✅ Passed	The title is concise and accurately reflects the getter refactor in FileData.
Description check	✅ Passed	The description matches the template and includes the change summary, checklist, and testing notes.

---

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.}

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 0% with 83 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 35.48%. Comparing base (91987cb) to head (631caae).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
fact/src/event/mod.rs	0.00%	83 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@                         Coverage Diff                         @@
##           mauro/feat/inodes-introspection    #1310      +/-   ##
===================================================================
+ Coverage                            35.42%   35.48%   +0.06%     
===================================================================
  Files                                   22       22              
  Lines                                 3241     3235       -6     
  Branches                              3241     3235       -6     
===================================================================
  Hits                                  1148     1148              
+ Misses                                2088     2082       -6     
  Partials                                 5        5              

☔ 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.

[coderabbitai]

🧹 Nitpick comments (1)

fact/src/event/mod.rs (1)

165-192: 🎯 Functional Correctness | 🔵 Trivial | ⚡ Quick win

Consider adding unit tests given 0% patch coverage on this refactor.

Codecov flagged 0% patch coverage across the 83 changed lines here. The getters/setters rely on large or-patterns spanning 11 variants each; a future edit that misplaces new/old (or drops a variant from one of the shared or-patterns) would silently compile but return wrong data (e.g. get_inode returning the "old" inode instead of "new"). A few targeted unit tests around Event::get_inode/get_old_inode/get_filename/get_old_filename for the Rename case would catch that class of regression cheaply.

🤖 Prompt for AI Agents

Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.

In `@fact/src/event/mod.rs` around lines 165 - 192, Add targeted unit tests for
the Rename variant covering Event::get_inode, Event::get_old_inode,
Event::get_filename, and Event::get_old_filename. Construct a rename event with
distinct old and new inode and filename values, then assert each getter returns
the corresponding value, validating the shared or-pattern mappings.

🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents

Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.

Nitpick comments:
In `@fact/src/event/mod.rs`:
- Around line 165-192: Add targeted unit tests for the Rename variant covering
Event::get_inode, Event::get_old_inode, Event::get_filename, and
Event::get_old_filename. Construct a rename event with distinct old and new
inode and filename values, then assert each getter returns the corresponding
value, validating the shared or-pattern mappings.

---

ℹ️ Review info

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yml

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Enterprise

Run ID: 4f74ba34-40ab-49a1-8449-4de8de79bf48

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 91987cb and 631caae.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• fact/src/event/mod.rs