update settings commit

[Siddharth2207]

Motivation

update settings commit

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 remote registry and settings sources to their latest versions, ensuring the app retrieves the most current configuration and content.
  • Improves data freshness and alignment with upstream updates without altering user workflows.
  • Background change only; no visible UI modifications or actions required from users.
  • Enhances reliability of remote-fetch operations by pointing to up-to-date endpoints.

[coderabbitai]

Walkthrough

Updated two exported constants in packages/webapp/src/lib/constants.ts to point to new raw.githubusercontent URLs with different commit hashes: REGISTRY_URL and REMOTE_SETTINGS_URL. No changes to names, types, logic, or control flow.

Changes

Cohort / File(s)	Summary
Constants URL updates packages/webapp/src/lib/constants.ts	Updated REGISTRY_URL and REMOTE_SETTINGS_URL values to new raw.githubusercontent commit hashes; no other edits.

Estimated code review effort

🎯 1 (Trivial) | ⏱️ ~2 minutes

Possibly related PRs

• Update settings #2033 — Also updates REGISTRY_URL and REMOTE_SETTINGS_URL to new raw.githubusercontent commit hashes in the same file.
• update registry url #1665 — Updates REGISTRY_URL in packages/webapp/src/lib/constants.ts; same constant changed here.
• Update settings, strats commit #1973 — Modifies REGISTRY_URL in the same file with a new commit hash.

Suggested labels

enhancement

Suggested reviewers

• hardyjosh
• findolor

Pre-merge checks and finishing touches

✅ Passed checks (3 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Description Check	✅ Passed	Check skipped - CodeRabbit’s high-level summary is enabled.
Title Check	✅ Passed	The title “update settings commit” directly references the core change of updating the commit references for settings, aligning with the update of the two URL constants, though it does not specify exactly which constants are modified.
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	No functions found in the changes. Docstring coverage check skipped.

✨ Finishing touches

• 📝 Generate docstrings

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests
• Post copyable unit tests in a comment
• Commit unit tests in branch 2025-10-14-update-commit

---

📜 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 093c274 and e7fd419.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• packages/webapp/src/lib/constants.ts (1 hunks)

🧰 Additional context used

📓 Path-based instructions (3)

packages/webapp/**/*.{svelte,ts}

📄 CodeRabbit inference engine (.github/copilot-instructions.md)

Webapp must pass Svelte lint/format checks (npm run svelte-lint-format-check -w @rainlanguage/webapp)

Files:

• packages/webapp/src/lib/constants.ts

packages/{webapp,ui-components}/**/*.{svelte,ts}

📄 CodeRabbit inference engine (.github/copilot-instructions.md)

If you modify frontend code, you must include a screenshot of the built webapp reflecting the change

Files:

• packages/webapp/src/lib/constants.ts

packages/**

📄 CodeRabbit inference engine (AGENTS.md)

JavaScript/Svelte projects live under packages/* (webapp, ui-components, orderbook)

Files:

• packages/webapp/src/lib/constants.ts

⏰ 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). (17)

• GitHub Check: standard-tests (ubuntu-latest, rainix-sol-artifacts)
• GitHub Check: git-clean
• GitHub Check: standard-tests (ubuntu-latest, rainix-sol-legal)
• GitHub Check: standard-tests (ubuntu-latest, rainix-rs-static)
• GitHub Check: standard-tests (ubuntu-latest, test-js-bindings)
• GitHub Check: standard-tests (ubuntu-latest, rainix-wasm-test)
• GitHub Check: standard-tests (ubuntu-latest, rainix-rs-artifacts, true)
• GitHub Check: standard-tests (ubuntu-latest, rainix-sol-test)
• GitHub Check: standard-tests (ubuntu-latest, rainix-wasm-artifacts)
• GitHub Check: standard-tests (ubuntu-latest, rainix-sol-static)
• GitHub Check: standard-tests (ubuntu-latest, ob-rs-test, true)
• GitHub Check: test
• GitHub Check: test
• GitHub Check: test
• GitHub Check: build-tauri (ubuntu-22.04, true)
• GitHub Check: Deploy-Docs-Preview
• GitHub Check: Deploy-Preview-Push

🔇 Additional comments (1)

packages/webapp/src/lib/constants.ts (1)

2-4: Verify changes in remote files and testing

• Commit e5fb08…cab and both registry/settings.yaml endpoints return 200, but we couldn’t auto-extract the previous hash for a diff. Please confirm what changed in those files on GitHub and ensure no breaking changes.
• Verify these URL updates in your unit/integration tests or via manual QA.
• Update the PR description with context or link to the related issue.

---

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

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{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]

The author of this PR is on the CodeRabbit Free Plan. In order to use the Chat feature, please upgrade the PR author to CodeRabbit Pro by visiting https://app.coderabbit.ai/login.