Fixed typo for ResponseCode::PrecoditionFailed

[Mpinyaz]

• changed the enum variant for ResponseCode::PrecoditionFailed to ResponseCode::PreconditionFailed
• Updated conversions (TryFrom and From<&ResponseCode>) to map to and from this correct variant.
• updated tests that implement this enum variant

Link to Issue below:
Fix Typo in ResponseCode::PrecoditionFailed #306

[Gsantomaggio]

@Mpinyaz thank you for your PR.

Our company did some changes around open source contribution, and now it's required that you sign a contributor license agreement (CLA) before we can accept your PR.

The process is explained here in this repo README: https://github.com/rabbitmq/cla

Would you review and sign this CLA?

[Mpinyaz]

@Gsantomaggio okay no problem

yes done signed the CLA

[Gsantomaggio]

@wolf4ood @allevo, any idea why the test fails? Thank you

[Mpinyaz]

@Gsantomaggio @wolf4ood @allevo
The build is using strict Clippy checks (note the -D warnings flag in the error output), which treats all warnings as errors. In this case, the binding_keys parameter is being unwrapped in an unidiomatic way - checking is_none() and then calling unwrap() instead of using Rust's pattern matching. Clippy's unnecessary_unwrap lint catches this and elevates it to an error level, causing the build to fail. I suggest this pattern matching would be better approach or mute the warning

if let Some(keys) = binding_keys {
    // handle Some case - `keys` is the extracted Vec<String>
    new_binding_keys = keys;
} else {
    // handle None case
}

[Gsantomaggio]

@Mpinyaz, please go ahead with the fix.

[Mpinyaz]

@Gsantomaggio pushed changes to the PR and would like to also take note of the following:

• I ran cargo clippy --all --all-features -- -D warnings locally to inspect if they are any other warnings that would stop the build from success and just found a few changes to the format specifiers for macros println! and format!
  Hopefully it will work and also checked previous PRs seems that was an issue all along

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 55.55556% with 8 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 88.95%. Comparing base (6a98283) to head (5f376f9).
⚠️ Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
src/stream_creator.rs	53.84%	6 Missing ⚠️
src/bin/perf-producer.rs	0.00%	2 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #307      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   89.12%   88.95%   -0.18%     
==========================================
  Files          81       81              
  Lines        7625     7125     -500     
==========================================
- Hits         6796     6338     -458     
+ Misses        829      787      -42     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 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.

[Gsantomaggio]

Thank you @Mpinyaz