2025 10 04 float

[thedavidmeister]

Motivation

Solution

Checks

By submitting this for review, I'm confirming I've done the following:

• made this PR as small as possible
• unit-tested any new functionality
• linked any relevant issues or PRs
• included screenshots (if this involves a front-end change)

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Chores
  • Updated internal library dependencies across multiple core modules to new revisions.
  • Added configuration entry to expand which files are included in license/REUSE annotations.
  • No user-facing changes; functionality, behavior, and public APIs remain unchanged.
  • Builds, tests, compatibility, performance, and documentation unaffected.

[coderabbitai]

Walkthrough

Advance tracked Git submodule commits for four libs and update REUSE configuration to include additional path annotations. No source code or public API declarations in this repository were modified.

Changes

Cohort / File(s)	Summary
Submodule pointer updates lib/forge-std, lib/rain.math.float, lib/rain.sol.codegen, lib/rain.solmem	Bump each submodule's tracked commit hash to a newer commit; only the submodule pointers changed, no in-repo code or API edits.
REUSE configuration REUSE.toml	Add REUSE.toml and foundry.lock to the path annotation list (configuration-only change affecting which files are considered for REUSE annotations).

Estimated code review effort

🎯 1 (Trivial) | ⏱️ ~2 minutes

Possibly related PRs

• update float #86 — Also updates the lib/rain.math.float submodule pointer to a nearby commit.
• float #73 — Bumps the lib/rain.math.float submodule pointer (same subsystem touched).
• update float #72 — Updates the lib/rain.math.float tracked commit (related submodule pointer change).

Pre-merge checks and finishing touches

❌ Failed checks (1 inconclusive)

Check name	Status	Explanation	Resolution
Title Check	❓ Inconclusive	The title “2025 10 04 float” is vague and does not summarize the main change, which is updating multiple submodule pointers; it only conveys a date and a single word without context, so it is unclear to readers what the pull request actually does.	Please update the title to a concise, descriptive summary of the primary change, for example “Update submodule pointers for forge-std, rain.math.float, rain.sol.codegen, and rain.solmem.”

✅ Passed checks (2 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Description Check	✅ Passed	Check skipped - CodeRabbit’s high-level summary is enabled.
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	No functions found in the changes. Docstring coverage check skipped.

✨ Finishing touches

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests
• Post copyable unit tests in a comment
• Commit unit tests in branch 2025-10-04-float

---

📜 Recent review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI

Review profile: ASSERTIVE

Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 484597c and b6a5fe0.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• REUSE.toml (1 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). (3)

• GitHub Check: rainix (ubuntu-latest, rainix-sol-test)
• GitHub Check: rainix (ubuntu-latest, rainix-sol-static)
• GitHub Check: rainix (ubuntu-latest, rainix-sol-legal)

---

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

[github-actions]

@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

[coderabbitai]

Tip

For best results, initiate chat on the files or code changes.

SIZE=S