Skip to content

Conversation

@Stivo182
Copy link
Owner

@Stivo182 Stivo182 commented Oct 1, 2025

  • autumn-cli: 1.1.0 → 1.2.0
    (repo · hub)
  • winow: 0.9.4 → 0.11.0
    (repo · hub)

Summary by CodeRabbit

  • Chores
    • Updated dependencies to newer versions to improve stability, compatibility, and overall reliability.
  • Style
    • Minor text/formatting cleanup with no user-visible impact.
  • Notes
    • No functional changes; existing behavior remains unchanged.

@coderabbitai
Copy link

coderabbitai bot commented Oct 1, 2025

Walkthrough

Dependency versions in packagedef were updated (winow 0.9.4→0.11.0, autumn-cli 1.1.0→1.2.0). A byte order mark (BOM) appears before the first identifier. No other changes to exported/public entities.

Changes

Cohort / File(s) Summary of Changes
Package definition
packagedef
Bumped dependencies: winow 0.9.4→0.11.0, autumn-cli 1.1.0→1.2.0; minor formatting: BOM character before first token; no other dependency adjustments or API changes

Estimated code review effort

🎯 2 (Simple) | ⏱️ ~10 minutes

Poem

I nudge the knobs, then hop away,
Two versions higher in bright array.
A sneaky BOM, a ghostly trace—
I twitch my whiskers, set it in place.
Packages fresh, carrots aligned,
Commit squeaks “done!”—release time! 🥕✨

Pre-merge checks and finishing touches

✅ Passed checks (3 passed)
Check name Status Explanation
Description Check ✅ Passed Check skipped - CodeRabbit’s high-level summary is enabled.
Title Check ✅ Passed The pull request title clearly and concisely describes the primary change, which is bumping the autumn-cli and winow dependencies to their new versions. It follows the conventional commit style, specifies the affected scope (deps), and avoids extraneous detail or vague wording. This makes it immediately understandable to reviewers scanning the history.
Docstring Coverage ✅ Passed No functions found in the changes. Docstring coverage check skipped.
✨ Finishing touches
🧪 Generate unit tests
  • Create PR with unit tests
  • Post copyable unit tests in a comment
  • Commit unit tests in branch depos/bump-deps/latest

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.

Copy link

@coderabbitai coderabbitai bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Actionable comments posted: 2

📜 Review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 57bd1d4 and 0824537.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)
  • packagedef (2 hunks)
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms. You can increase the timeout in your CodeRabbit configuration to a maximum of 15 minutes (900000ms). (6)
  • GitHub Check: test (stable) / build (windows-latest, stable)
  • GitHub Check: test (dev) / build (ubuntu-latest, dev)
  • GitHub Check: test (stable) / build (ubuntu-latest, stable)
  • GitHub Check: test (dev) / build (ubuntu-latest, dev)
  • GitHub Check: sonar / test
  • GitHub Check: test (stable) / build (ubuntu-latest, stable)

@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
Описание.Имя("httpbin")
Описание.Имя("httpbin")
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

⚠️ Potential issue | 🔴 Critical

🧩 Analysis chain

Unintended BOM character detected.

A UTF-8 Byte Order Mark (U+FEFF) appears before Описание.Имя("httpbin"). BOMs can cause parsing errors in some interpreters and are generally unnecessary in UTF-8 files.

Verify whether the oscript interpreter tolerates BOMs in packagedef files:


🏁 Script executed:

#!/bin/bash
# Check if other packagedef files in the repository contain BOMs
fd -e packagedef -x file {} \; | grep -i "bom"

# Check the actual byte sequence at the start of the file
head -c 10 packagedef | od -A x -t x1z -v

Length of output: 40


🏁 Script executed:

#!/bin/bash
# Verify BOM presence in 'packagedef' and any other files named 'packagedef' using Python
python3 - << 'EOF'
import glob, os
def has_bom(path):
    with open(path, 'rb') as f:
        return f.read(3) == b'\xef\xbb\xbf'

# Check main file
main = 'packagedef'
print(f"{main}: BOM present: {has_bom(main)}")

# Check other files named 'packagedef'
for f in glob.glob('**/packagedef', recursive=True):
    if os.path.abspath(f) != os.path.abspath(main):
        print(f"{f}: BOM present: {has_bom(f)}")
EOF

Length of output: 175


🏁 Script executed:

#!/bin/bash
# Verify BOM presence in 'packagedef' and any other files named 'packagedef' using Python
python3 - << 'EOF'
import glob, os
def has_bom(path):
    with open(path, 'rb') as f:
        return f.read(3) == b'\xef\xbb\xbf'

files = glob.glob('**/packagedef', recursive=True) + ['packagedef']
checked = set()
for path in files:
    real = os.path.abspath(path)
    if real in checked or not os.path.isfile(path):
        continue
    checked.add(real)
    print(f"{path}: BOM present: {has_bom(path)}")
EOF

Length of output: 29


Remove UTF-8 BOM from packagedef

A UTF-8 Byte Order Mark was detected at the start of packagedef. BOMs can cause parsing errors in the oscript interpreter. Remove the leading BOM so the file begins directly with Описание.Имя("httpbin").

🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
In packagedef around lines 1 to 1, the file contains a UTF-8 Byte Order Mark
(BOM) at the very start which can break the oscript interpreter; remove the BOM
so the file begins directly with Описание.Имя("httpbin") by re-saving the file
without BOM (e.g., choose UTF-8 without BOM or strip the leading 0xEF,0xBB,0xBF
bytes) and verify the first byte is the 'О' character.

Comment on lines +14 to +15
.ЗависитОт("winow", "0.11.0")
.ЗависитОт("autumn-cli", "1.2.0")
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

⚠️ Potential issue | 🔴 Critical

🧩 Analysis chain

Verify dependency versions exist and check for breaking changes.

The dependency updates look reasonable, but ensure the specified versions exist and are compatible with this package.

Run the following script to verify the versions and check for any compatibility issues:


🏁 Script executed:

#!/bin/bash
# Check if the specified versions exist in the repositories

echo "Checking winow 0.11.0..."
curl -s "https://hub.oscript.io/api/v1/packages/winow" | jq '.versions[] | select(.version == "0.11.0")'

echo "Checking autumn-cli 1.2.0..."
curl -s "https://hub.oscript.io/api/v1/packages/autumn-cli" | jq '.versions[] | select(.version == "1.2.0")'

# Check GitHub releases
echo "Checking winow releases..."
gh api repos/oscript-library/winow/releases --jq '.[] | select(.tag_name | contains("0.11.0")) | {tag_name, published_at, body}'

echo "Checking autumn-cli releases..."
gh api repos/oscript-library/autumn-cli/releases --jq '.[] | select(.tag_name | contains("1.2.0")) | {tag_name, published_at, body}'

Length of output: 226


🏁 Script executed:

#!/bin/bash
echo "winow tags:"
curl -s https://api.github.com/repos/oscript-library/winow/tags | jq '.[].name' | grep -E 'v?0\.11\.0'
echo "autumn-cli tags:"
curl -s https://api.github.com/repos/oscript-library/autumn-cli/tags | jq '.[].name' | grep -E 'v?1\.2\.0'
echo "winow release v0.11.0 details:"
curl -s https://api.github.com/repos/oscript-library/winow/releases | jq '.[] | select(.tag_name == "v0.11.0" or .tag_name == "0.11.0") | {tag_name, published_at, body}'
echo "autumn-cli release v1.2.0 details:"
curl -s https://api.github.com/repos/oscript-library/autumn-cli/releases | jq '.[] | select(.tag_name == "v1.2.0" or .tag_name == "1.2.0") | {tag_name, published_at, body}'

Length of output: 94


packagedef: missing release tags for [email protected] and [email protected]
Neither version exists in their GitHub repositories; ensure these releases are published or update to valid published versions.

🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
In packagedef around lines 14 to 15, the dependency entries reference
non-existent release tags ([email protected] and [email protected]); either publish
those exact tags in the respective GitHub repos or update these lines to point
to valid, published release versions (or alternate semver ranges) that exist in
each repo, then re-run dependency validation to ensure the package build
resolves successfully.

@Stivo182
Copy link
Owner Author

Stivo182 commented Oct 1, 2025

Добавлена поддержка через PR #10

@Stivo182 Stivo182 closed this Oct 1, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants