Skip to content

Conversation

@stainless-app
Copy link
Contributor

@stainless-app stainless-app bot commented Sep 30, 2025

Automated Release PR

0.12.0 (2025-09-30)

Full Changelog: v0.11.5...v0.12.0

Features

  • Return proxy ID in browsers response (2beafcf)

This pull request is managed by Stainless's GitHub App.

The semver version number is based on included commit messages. Alternatively, you can manually set the version number in the title of this pull request.

For a better experience, it is recommended to use either rebase-merge or squash-merge when merging this pull request.

🔗 Stainless website
📚 Read the docs
🙋 Reach out for help or questions


TL;DR

This is an automated release for version 0.12.0, which adds the proxy_id to browser API responses.

Why we made these changes

This change allows users to easily identify and manage the specific proxy associated with a browser instance directly from the browser object, without needing to make separate API calls.

What changed?

  • The response from the browser creation and retrieval endpoints now includes the proxy_id.

0.12.0 (2025-09-30)

Full Changelog: v0.11.5...v0.12.0

Features

  • Return proxy ID in browsers response (2beafcf)

Validation

This is an automated release PR managed by Stainless. All changes are validated through the existing CI pipeline.

Description generated by Mesa. Update settings

@stainless-app
Copy link
Contributor Author

stainless-app bot commented Sep 30, 2025

🧪 Testing

To try out this version of the SDK, run:

pip install 'https://pkg.stainless.com/s/kernel-python/2beafcfbd8ee20e83616656b23587d67df9490a9/kernel-0.11.5-py3-none-any.whl'

Expires: Thu, 30 Oct 2025 23:53:34 GMT

Copy link

@mesa-dot-dev mesa-dot-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.

Performed full review of 398b7ff...40a65f4

Analysis

  1. The PR only adds proxy_id to browser response types but lacks specific tests targeting this new field, which could lead to undetected bugs in how the field is populated or handled.

  2. While the change is additive, there's no clear validation provided for the proxy_id field format or constraints, potentially allowing invalid data to be passed through.

  3. Documentation exists but may not fully explain the purpose and usage context of proxy_id to new developers, creating potential maintenance challenges.

Tip

⚡ Quick Actions

This review was generated by Mesa.

Actions:

Slash Commands:

  • /review - Request a full code review
  • /review latest - Review only changes since the last review
  • /describe - Generate PR description. This will update the PR body or issue comment depending on your configuration
  • /help - Get help with Mesa commands and configuration options

8 files reviewed | 0 comments | Review on Mesa | Edit Reviewer Settings

Copy link
Contributor

@sjmiller609 sjmiller609 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

lgtm

@stainless-app stainless-app bot merged commit 6d87563 into main Sep 30, 2025
8 checks passed
@stainless-app
Copy link
Contributor Author

stainless-app bot commented Sep 30, 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