Skip to content

ci: drop setup-node, route npm through rust-node-shell#222

Merged
thedavidmeister merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
2026-05-23-rust-node-shell-test-js
May 23, 2026
Merged

ci: drop setup-node, route npm through rust-node-shell#222
thedavidmeister merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
2026-05-23-rust-node-shell-test-js

Conversation

@thedavidmeister
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Replaces actions/setup-node@v4 + local-default-shell test-js-bindings with rainix#rust-node-shell (landed in rainlanguage/rainix#177). All npm calls (test-js-bindings, NPM hashes, Bump NPM version, NPM pack) now go through one consistent nix shell.

Removes the PATH-ambiguity / node-version-drift risk we flagged earlier when setup-node and nix were both in play.

Replaces actions/setup-node@v4 + the local default-shell test-js-bindings
task with rainix#rust-node-shell. All npm calls (test/build/test in
the bindings step, npm view/pack, npm version, final npm pack) now go
through one consistent nix shell.

Benefits:
- PATH ordering and node-version drift between actions/setup-node and
  nix are gone; node is the same version nix pins for everyone.
- Test JS/TS bindings step no longer needs the heavy local default
  shell (which pulled in everything via inputsFrom).
- Single source of truth for the JS toolchain (nix), matching the rust
  and sol sides.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
@thedavidmeister thedavidmeister self-assigned this May 23, 2026
@coderabbitai
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

coderabbitai Bot commented May 23, 2026

Warning

Review limit reached

@thedavidmeister, we couldn't start this review because you've used your available PR reviews for now.

Your plan currently allows 1 review/hour. Refill in 52 minutes and 14 seconds.

Your organization has run out of usage credits. Purchase more in the billing tab.

⌛ How to resolve this issue?

After more review capacity refills, 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 trial, open-source, and free plans. In all cases, review capacity refills continuously over time.

Please see our FAQ for further information.

ℹ️ Review info
⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Organization UI

Review profile: ASSERTIVE

Plan: Pro

Run ID: 16eff1f4-ed9d-4af1-a4c7-46dac2daec24

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between a3f00bb and 4831fae.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)
  • .github/workflows/package-release.yaml
✨ Finishing Touches
🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
  • Create PR with unit tests
  • Commit unit tests in branch 2026-05-23-rust-node-shell-test-js

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

Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.

@thedavidmeister thedavidmeister merged commit 2fcfc39 into main May 23, 2026
9 of 10 checks passed
@thedavidmeister thedavidmeister deleted the 2026-05-23-rust-node-shell-test-js branch May 23, 2026 08:27
@github-actions
Copy link
Copy Markdown

@coderabbitai assess this PR size classification for the totality of the PR with the following criterias and report it in your comment:

S/M/L PR Classification Guidelines:

This guide helps classify merged pull requests by effort and complexity rather than just line count. The goal is to assess the difficulty and scope of changes after they have been completed.

Small (S)

Characteristics:

  • Simple bug fixes, typos, or minor refactoring
  • Single-purpose changes affecting 1-2 files
  • Documentation updates
  • Configuration tweaks
  • Changes that require minimal context to review

Review Effort: Would have taken 5-10 minutes

Examples:

  • Fix typo in variable name
  • Update README with new instructions
  • Adjust configuration values
  • Simple one-line bug fixes
  • Import statement cleanup

Medium (M)

Characteristics:

  • Feature additions or enhancements
  • Refactoring that touches multiple files but maintains existing behavior
  • Breaking changes with backward compatibility
  • Changes requiring some domain knowledge to review

Review Effort: Would have taken 15-30 minutes

Examples:

  • Add new feature or component
  • Refactor common utility functions
  • Update dependencies with minor breaking changes
  • Add new component with tests
  • Performance optimizations
  • More complex bug fixes

Large (L)

Characteristics:

  • Major feature implementations
  • Breaking changes or API redesigns
  • Complex refactoring across multiple modules
  • New architectural patterns or significant design changes
  • Changes requiring deep context and multiple review rounds

Review Effort: Would have taken 45+ minutes

Examples:

  • Complete new feature with frontend/backend changes
  • Protocol upgrades or breaking changes
  • Major architectural refactoring
  • Framework or technology upgrades

Additional Factors to Consider

When deciding between sizes, also consider:

  • Test coverage impact: More comprehensive test changes lean toward larger classification
  • Risk level: Changes to critical systems bump up a size category
  • Team familiarity: Novel patterns or technologies increase complexity

Notes:

  • the assessment must be for the totality of the PR, that means comparing the base branch to the last commit of the PR
  • the assessment output must be exactly one of: S, M or L (single-line comment) in format of: SIZE={S/M/L}
  • do not include any additional text, only the size classification
  • your assessment comment must not include tips or additional sections
  • do NOT tag me or anyone else on your comment

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.

1 participant