Skip to content

refactor: use versioned soldeer paths in imports#58

Merged
thedavidmeister merged 3 commits into
mainfrom
2026-05-21-versioned-imports
May 21, 2026
Merged

refactor: use versioned soldeer paths in imports#58
thedavidmeister merged 3 commits into
mainfrom
2026-05-21-versioned-imports

Conversation

@thedavidmeister
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Switches src/ imports from namespace-style (rain.interpreter.interface/..., rain.math.float/...) to versioned soldeer paths (rain-interpreter-interface-0.1.0/src/..., rain-math-float-0.1.1/src/...).

Why

Solc resolves imports through the CONSUMER's remappings, not this package's. v0.1.0 used custom rain.interpreter.interface/=… and rain.math.float/=… remappings in foundry.toml and worked locally, but any consumer (e.g. raindex's soldeer migration) had to add those same custom remappings to make this package's internal imports resolve.

With versioned paths the internal imports resolve via the auto-generated remappings.txt that forge soldeer install produces for every consumer — no extra config needed.

Changes

  • src/ imports: rain.interpreter.interface/…rain-interpreter-interface-0.1.0/src/…, rain.math.float/…rain-math-float-0.1.1/src/… (8 files, 23 imports rewritten)
  • foundry.toml: dropped the now-unused custom remappings = […] section
  • .gitignore: *.zip (dry-run artifacts)

After merge, tag v0.1.1 so consumers can bump.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

Previously this package used custom remappings to keep the
rain.interpreter.interface/... and rain.math.float/... namespace-style
paths in source. That worked for our own build but pushed extra burden
onto consumers: anything depending on raindex-interface had to also
remap those namespaces, because Solc resolves imports in our source
through the CONSUMERs remappings, not ours.

Switch to the versioned soldeer paths directly so consumers can just
pull raindex-interface and have its internal imports resolve via the
auto-generated remappings.txt soldeer install produces. Bumps the
minor version when this lands.
@thedavidmeister thedavidmeister self-assigned this May 21, 2026
@coderabbitai
Copy link
Copy Markdown

coderabbitai Bot commented May 21, 2026

Warning

Rate limit exceeded

@thedavidmeister has exceeded the limit for the number of commits that can be reviewed per hour. Please wait 9 minutes and 20 seconds before requesting another review.

You’ve run out of usage credits. Purchase more in the billing tab.

⌛ 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.

ℹ️ Review info
⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Organization UI

Review profile: ASSERTIVE

Plan: Pro

Run ID: d23ba80d-1513-4d3d-807c-cabcd5623736

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 7ddfef1 and 32b0443.

📒 Files selected for processing (8)
  • .gitignore
  • foundry.toml
  • src/interface/IRaindexV6.sol
  • src/interface/deprecated/v1/IOrderBookV1.sol
  • src/interface/deprecated/v2/IOrderBookV2.sol
  • src/interface/deprecated/v3/IOrderBookV3.sol
  • src/interface/deprecated/v4/IOrderBookV4.sol
  • src/interface/deprecated/v5/IOrderBookV5.sol
✨ Finishing Touches
🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
  • Create PR with unit tests
  • Commit unit tests in branch 2026-05-21-versioned-imports

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 c0e58cd into main May 21, 2026
4 checks passed
@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