Skip to content

Conversation

@JounQin
Copy link
Member

@JounQin JounQin commented Jul 6, 2025

🤖 New release

  • unrs_resolver: 1.10.1 -> 1.11.0
Changelog

1.11.0 - 2025-07-06

🚀 Features

🚜 Refactor

💼 Other

Contributors


This PR was generated with release-plz.


Important

Release v1.11.0 of unrs_resolver with new features, refactoring, and version bump.

  • Version Update:
    • Bump unrs_resolver version from 1.10.1 to 1.11.0 in Cargo.toml and Cargo.lock.
  • Features:
    • Return proper errors when failing to find or read yarn pnp manifest.
    • Add yarn_pnp logic to FileSystem.
    • Rework yarn manifest file lookup.
  • Refactor:
    • Remove fs_cache feature flag.
  • Misc:
    • Merge remote-tracking branch 'upstream/main'.

This description was created by Ellipsis for f055f8c. You can customize this summary. It will automatically update as commits are pushed.

@JounQin JounQin force-pushed the release-plz-2025-07-06T12-16-54Z branch from f055f8c to 621acb0 Compare July 6, 2025 12:16
@coderabbitai
Copy link

coderabbitai bot commented Jul 6, 2025

Warning

Rate limit exceeded

@JounQin has exceeded the limit for the number of commits or files that can be reviewed per hour. Please wait 11 minutes and 36 seconds before requesting another review.

⌛ How to resolve this issue?

After the wait time has elapsed, a review can be triggered using the @coderabbitai review command as a PR comment. Alternatively, push new commits to this PR.

We recommend that you space out your commits to avoid hitting the rate limit.

🚦 How do rate limits work?

CodeRabbit enforces hourly rate limits for each developer per organization.

Our paid plans have higher rate limits than the trial, open-source and free plans. In all cases, we re-allow further reviews after a brief timeout.

Please see our FAQ for further information.

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between e7744de and 621acb0.

⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (1)
  • Cargo.lock is excluded by !**/*.lock
📒 Files selected for processing (3)
  • CHANGELOG.md (1 hunks)
  • Cargo.toml (1 hunks)
  • package.json (2 hunks)

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
🪧 Tips

Chat

There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:

  • Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by CodeRabbit. Example:
    • I pushed a fix in commit <commit_id>, please review it.
    • Explain this complex logic.
    • Open a follow-up GitHub issue for this discussion.
  • Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab): Tag @coderabbitai in a new review comment at the desired location with your query. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai explain this code block.
    • @coderabbitai modularize this function.
  • PR comments: Tag @coderabbitai in a new PR comment to ask questions about the PR branch. For the best results, please provide a very specific query, as very limited context is provided in this mode. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai gather interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table. Additionally, render a pie chart showing the language distribution in the codebase.
    • @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and explain its main purpose.
    • @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.
    • @coderabbitai help me debug CodeRabbit configuration file.

Support

Need help? Create a ticket on our support page for assistance with any issues or questions.

Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments.

CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)

  • @coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
  • @coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
  • @coderabbitai review to trigger an incremental review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai full review to do a full review from scratch and review all the files again.
  • @coderabbitai summary to regenerate the summary of the PR.
  • @coderabbitai generate docstrings to generate docstrings for this PR.
  • @coderabbitai generate sequence diagram to generate a sequence diagram of the changes in this PR.
  • @coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
  • @coderabbitai configuration to show the current CodeRabbit configuration for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai help to get help.

Other keywords and placeholders

  • Add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.
  • Add @coderabbitai summary to generate the high-level summary at a specific location in the PR description.
  • Add @coderabbitai anywhere in the PR title to generate the title automatically.

CodeRabbit Configuration File (.coderabbit.yaml)

  • You can programmatically configure CodeRabbit by adding a .coderabbit.yaml file to the root of your repository.
  • Please see the configuration documentation for more information.
  • If your editor has YAML language server enabled, you can add the path at the top of this file to enable auto-completion and validation: # yaml-language-server: $schema=https://coderabbit.ai/integrations/schema.v2.json

Documentation and Community

  • Visit our Documentation for detailed information on how to use CodeRabbit.
  • Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.
  • Follow us on X/Twitter for updates and announcements.

@sonarqubecloud
Copy link

sonarqubecloud bot commented Jul 6, 2025

Please retry analysis of this Pull-Request directly on SonarQube Cloud

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Jul 6, 2025

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 95.10%. Comparing base (e7744de) to head (621acb0).
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main     #179   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   95.10%   95.10%           
=======================================
  Files          12       12           
  Lines        2818     2818           
=======================================
  Hits         2680     2680           
  Misses        138      138           

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

Copy link

@ellipsis-dev ellipsis-dev bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Important

Looks good to me! 👍

Reviewed everything up to f055f8c in 1 minute and 46 seconds. Click for details.
  • Reviewed 64 lines of code in 3 files
  • Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
  • Skipped posting 2 draft comments. View those below.
  • Modify your settings and rules to customize what types of comments Ellipsis leaves. And don't forget to react with 👍 or 👎 to teach Ellipsis.
1. Cargo.toml:10
  • Draft comment:
    The include paths use leading '/' which makes them look absolute. Consider using relative paths (e.g. 'src', 'examples', 'benches') to avoid potential packaging issues.
  • Reason this comment was not posted:
    Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.
2. CHANGELOG.md:16
  • Draft comment:
    Typo: Consider using 'lookup' instead of 'look up' in "rework yarn manifest file look up" for better clarity.
  • Reason this comment was not posted:
    Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 0% vs. threshold = 50% This is a very minor stylistic suggestion about word choice in documentation. Both "look up" and "lookup" are technically correct - "look up" is the verb form and "lookup" is the noun form. The comment isn't pointing out an actual error. Changelogs are meant to document changes, not be perfectly styled documents. The comment could be technically correct if "lookup" is the standard term used throughout the codebase. Consistency in terminology can be important. While consistency is good, this is too minor of an issue to warrant a comment. The meaning is clear either way, and this is just documentation, not code. Delete this comment as it's an extremely minor stylistic suggestion about documentation that doesn't impact functionality or clarity.

Workflow ID: wflow_6i5OBoIF3u9daSEf

You can customize Ellipsis by changing your verbosity settings, reacting with 👍 or 👎, replying to comments, or adding code review rules.

@codspeed-hq
Copy link

codspeed-hq bot commented Jul 6, 2025

CodSpeed Performance Report

Merging #179 will not alter performance

Comparing release-plz-2025-07-06T12-16-54Z (621acb0) with main (e7744de)

Summary

✅ 3 untouched benchmarks

@JounQin JounQin merged commit b012366 into main Jul 6, 2025
23 checks passed
@JounQin JounQin deleted the release-plz-2025-07-06T12-16-54Z branch July 6, 2025 12:19
JounQin added a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 6, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants