Requesting clarification on reason for edit rejection

If applying inline code formatting to a file name were the only change your edit was making, then I'd have to agree with it being rejected as being, effectively, "too minor". That is to say, not a substantive improvement to the quality or readability of the post—an unnecessary edit that wastes not only your time, but the time of all the reviewers.

You note in a comment replying to VLAZ that there is an answer on Meta Stack Exchange that says it is permissible to format "Any string that can be recognized or generated by a computer", including the name of "file, file path, file extension". This is certainly true; it is permissible. But it is not obligatory. If the post is easily readable without this change, then the change is not needed. A single, short file name/path is easily readable without the need for any code formatting. And, there's a strong argument to be made that overuse of code formatting makes posts vastly less readable. (In this case, it's hard to argue that a single thing formatted as inline code makes the post less readable, but, at the same time, it's equally hard to argue that having that single thing formatted as inline code makes the post more readable. So you see why I would consider it effectively pointless?)

^{There's also this FAQ on how to make a good edit here on MSO, and it's worth noting that the answer specifically calls out guidelines and cautions for use (and overuse) of inline code formatting.}

So, I've established that I would agree with the rejection of your edit if its only change were adding inline code formatting to that file name/path. But that wasn't the only thing your edit did; it also made improvements to the grammar. These, I would argue, substantively improved the readability of the post. On that basis, I've exercised moderator privileges to force through the approval of that edit.

I would add one lesson for the future: When you're making edits, try to fix all of the problems with the post. In this case, it was a short post, so it doesn't seem like there were any other problems. But there was one minor one: a code block (its own paragraph/section) that was formatted as inline code. That should have been converted to block code formatting. I've also gone ahead and made that minor change.

Yeah, it's a long-standing tension: edits that are too trivial are discouraged, but we do want to encourage edits that improve the post. So where is the boundary line for what counts as "too trivial"? It's subjective.

I would have approved this suggested edit, but I can also understand why others might reject it. The revision fixed a grammatical mistake, but I don't think it was necessary, so I think one could make an argument either way.

Here are some references:

Any time you see a post that needs improvement and are inclined to edit it, you are encouraged to do so.

Some common reasons to edit a post are: [...] To fix grammatical or spelling mistakes [...]

Tiny, trivial edits are discouraged; try to make the post significantly better when you edit, correcting all problems that you observe.

https://stackoverflow.com/help/privileges/edit

Also:

Approve if the edit improves the post [...]

Reject if the edit is unnecessary [...]

Common reasons to Approve [...] Improves grammar, spelling, or formatting of the post [...]

Common reasons to Reject [...] changes to content or formatting that are unnecessary [...] changes to grammar, spelling, or style that are unnecessary

https://stackoverflow.com/help/review-suggested-edits

How does your edit fare according to those criteria? Arguably, your edit improves the post by improving grammar and formatting. On the other hand, there is also a reasonable argument that the post didn't need improvement and your edit is a "tiny, trivial edit" that isn't necessary. It's a judgement call, and I can see different reviewers disagreeing on this point.

Why do we have these guidelines? On the one hand, we want to build an archive of knowledge and improve it and make it more useful for others. On the other hand, we have some limits on our capacity to review suggested edits: it takes time from volunteers, and we have a limited number of volunteers willing to review suggested edits, so we ask that people focus on edits that make a substantive improvement (until you have enough reputation to edit without needing review from others).

Related: "Too minor" edits - better to leave poor quality on the site?, What do I now do for a previously "too minor" edit?, Are trivial edits okay if I have full editing privileges?, Do the instructions for the edit review queue need to be improved?