Make TopKDynamicFilters public

[masonh22]

Which issue does this PR close?

• Closes #.

Rationale for this change

TopKDynamicFilters is needed as an argument to TopK::try_new(), so without it it's impossible to construct a TopK.

What changes are included in this PR?

What is the testing strategy for this PR?

Are there any user-facing changes?

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 82.73%. Comparing base (264ee3d) to head (f2b0922).
⚠️ Report is 21 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main   #25429      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   82.72%   82.73%   +0.01%     
==========================================
  Files        1147     1147              
  Lines      448013   449540    +1527     
  Branches   448013   449540    +1527     
==========================================
+ Hits       370602   371916    +1314     
- Misses      54920    54947      +27     
- Partials    22491    22677     +186     

☔ 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.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[kosiew]

@masonh22,

Thanks for working on this. The re-export fixes the API visibility issue cleanly without changing runtime behavior. I just have one non-blocking suggestion to make sure this public API path stays covered.

[kosiew]

Could you add a compiling rustdoc example or external integration test that imports both types from the crate root, constructs TopKDynamicFilters, and passes it to TopK::try_new? Tests inside the private topk module would still pass without this re-export, so a public-path compilation test would catch this visibility issue if it regresses.

[masonh22]

Yes, this is a good idea. I'll try to get around to this later today or tomorrow

[masonh22]

I had claude add a trivial doc example and validated that reverting my fix causes the doc test to fail. Let me know what you think, I'm happy to make changes.