-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 534
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
4.2.0 release #2896
4.2.0 release #2896
Conversation
Warning Rate limit exceeded@khancode has exceeded the limit for the number of commits or files that can be reviewed per hour. Please wait 7 minutes and 54 seconds before requesting another review. ⌛ How to resolve this issue?After the wait time has elapsed, a review can be triggered using the 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. 📒 Files selected for processing (1)
WalkthroughThis pull request updates release notes and version numbers in the Changes
Possibly related PRs
Suggested reviewers
Poem
Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
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)
Other keywords and placeholders
Documentation and Community
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Actionable comments posted: 1
📜 Review details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (1)
package-lock.json
is excluded by!**/package-lock.json
📒 Files selected for processing (4)
packages/ripple-binary-codec/HISTORY.md
(1 hunks)packages/ripple-binary-codec/package.json
(1 hunks)packages/xrpl/HISTORY.md
(1 hunks)packages/xrpl/package.json
(2 hunks)
✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (1)
- packages/ripple-binary-codec/package.json
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (3)
- GitHub Check: snippets (20.x)
- GitHub Check: snippets (18.x)
- GitHub Check: Socket Security: Pull Request Alerts
🔇 Additional comments (3)
packages/xrpl/package.json (1)
3-3
: LGTM! Version updates are consistent.The version bump to 4.2.0 and the ripple-binary-codec dependency update to ^2.3.0 align with the changes documented in the HISTORY.md files.
Also applies to: 32-32
packages/ripple-binary-codec/HISTORY.md (1)
5-9
: LGTM! Release notes are well documented.The release notes for version 2.3.0 clearly document the support for two new amendments:
- AMMClawback amendment (XLS-73)
- Permissioned Domains amendment (XLS-80)
packages/xrpl/HISTORY.md (1)
16-20
: LGTM! Changes are well documented.The changes section clearly documents:
- Deprecation of
setTransactionFlagsToNumber
with migration path toconvertTxFlagsToNumber
- Fix for
network_id
field in theserver_state
response interface
@@ -14507,7 +14507,7 @@ | |||
} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
should we place the package-lock.json
file under .gitignore
? It's diff should not be pushed into remotes.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Only the root package-lock.json should be updated so this change is correct.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
hmm, other developers can always do npm install
inside the repository root. Do we need to push this lock file?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is required because package-lock.json
installs the exact, versioned dependency tree rather than using starred versioning. Starred versioning can install newer versions of packages that can potentially break the project.
High Level Overview of Change
4.2.0 release
Type of Change
Did you update HISTORY.md?
Test Plan