Skip to content

chore(release): update upgrade-policy.json to 2.0.3#44

Merged
BuddhaSource merged 3 commits into
mainfrom
develop
May 1, 2026
Merged

chore(release): update upgrade-policy.json to 2.0.3#44
BuddhaSource merged 3 commits into
mainfrom
develop

Conversation

@aryaman-payram
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Automated PR from payram-core release 2.0.1.

@coderabbitai
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

coderabbitai Bot commented Apr 28, 2026

Walkthrough

The upgrade policy JSON was updated to set "2.0.3" as latest and dashboard_max, and the releases array was prepended with "2.0.3", "2.0.2", and "2.0.1" before the existing "2.0.0" entry; file lacks a trailing newline.

Changes

Cohort / File(s) Summary
Upgrade Policy Configuration
updater-configs/upgrade-policy.json
Bumped latest and dashboard_max to "2.0.3"; prepended releases with "2.0.3", "2.0.2", "2.0.1" before "2.0.0"; +5/-2 lines; file missing trailing newline.

Estimated code review effort

🎯 2 (Simple) | ⏱️ ~10 minutes

Possibly related PRs

Suggested labels

enhancement

Suggested reviewers

  • sam6230i
  • BuddhaSource
  • iam-joey

Poem

🐰 I hopped through configs, soft and spry,
Pushed three little versions up toward the sky,
I nudged 2.0.3 to lead the queue,
Left a tiny newline out — who knew?
Celebrate the bump with a joyful hop and a sigh.

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 4 | ❌ 1

❌ Failed checks (1 inconclusive)

Check name Status Explanation Resolution
Title check ❓ Inconclusive The PR title mentions updating to version 2.0.3, but the PR description references release 2.0.1 and the commit message mentions adding 2.0.3, creating conflicting version information that makes it unclear what the actual primary change is. Clarify which version (2.0.1 or 2.0.3) is the primary focus of this release update and ensure the PR title aligns with the actual change intent.
✅ Passed checks (4 passed)
Check name Status Explanation
Description check ✅ Passed The description states the PR updates upgrade-policy.json to include version 2.0.1, which is partially accurate but incomplete, as the changes also add 2.0.2, 2.0.3 and set 2.0.3 as the latest version.
Docstring Coverage ✅ Passed No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check.
Linked Issues check ✅ Passed Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request.
Out of Scope Changes check ✅ Passed Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request.

✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings.

✨ Finishing Touches
📝 Generate docstrings
  • Create stacked PR
  • Commit on current branch
🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
  • Create PR with unit tests
  • Commit unit tests in branch develop

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

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@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: 1

🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents
Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed.

Inline comments:
In `@updater-configs/upgrade-policy.json`:
- Line 3: The upgrade-policy.json metadata is inconsistent with the PR
objective: the fields "latest", "dashboard_max", and the entry in the "releases"
array reference 2.0.2 while the PR intends to publish 2.0.1; update these
symbols ("latest", "dashboard_max", and the "releases" array entry) to
consistently use 2.0.1 OR, if 2.0.2 is intended, change the PR title/description
to 2.0.2 so the release metadata and policy remain aligned.
🪄 Autofix (Beta)

Fix all unresolved CodeRabbit comments on this PR:

  • Push a commit to this branch (recommended)
  • Create a new PR with the fixes

ℹ️ Review info
⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Organization UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

Run ID: 887d64a2-055e-4b79-8125-2e75e42bc04a

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 9229e1e and ce1e500.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)
  • updater-configs/upgrade-policy.json

Comment thread updater-configs/upgrade-policy.json Outdated
{
"schema_version": 1,
"latest": "2.0.0",
"latest": "2.0.2",
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

⚠️ Potential issue | 🟠 Major

Reconcile the release target: config promotes 2.0.2 while PR objective says 2.0.1.

Line 3 and Line 60 set latest/dashboard_max to 2.0.2, and Line 15 adds 2.0.2 to releases. The PR objective describes a 2.0.1 release update. This mismatch can push upgrade logic to the wrong version.

[suggested fix if this PR is truly for 2.0.1:]

Patch
-  "latest": "2.0.2",
+  "latest": "2.0.1",
@@
-    "2.0.2",
     "2.0.1",
@@
-  "dashboard_max": "2.0.2"
+  "dashboard_max": "2.0.1"

If 2.0.2 is intentional, update the PR title/description to 2.0.2 so release metadata and policy stay consistent.

Also applies to: 15-16, 60-60

🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed.

In `@updater-configs/upgrade-policy.json` at line 3, The upgrade-policy.json
metadata is inconsistent with the PR objective: the fields "latest",
"dashboard_max", and the entry in the "releases" array reference 2.0.2 while the
PR intends to publish 2.0.1; update these symbols ("latest", "dashboard_max",
and the "releases" array entry) to consistently use 2.0.1 OR, if 2.0.2 is
intended, change the PR title/description to 2.0.2 so the release metadata and
policy remain aligned.

@BuddhaSource BuddhaSource changed the title chore(release): update upgrade-policy.json to 2.0.1 chore(release): update upgrade-policy.json to 2.0.3 May 1, 2026
@BuddhaSource BuddhaSource merged commit cf07951 into main May 1, 2026
1 check passed
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.

2 participants