Pin the published rain-math-float 0.1.12 bindings

[thedavidmeister]

crates/tests dev-depended on a git commit of rain.math.float.deploy while the test-harness feature (rain.math.float.deploy#21) was unpublished. The crate is now on crates.io as rain-math-float 0.1.12; this pins it.

QA

• Discriminating tests: cargo test 76 passed over the published crate; rainix-rs-static clean.
• Mutations applied: n/a, a dependency source change with no logic; the same 76 tests run over the same test concretes, now through the registry build of the bindings.
• Oracle: the tests themselves, unchanged; Cargo.lock resolves rain-math-float to registry 0.1.12 and nothing else moves.
• Category check: Cargo.toml and Cargo.lock only.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

https://claude.ai/code/session_01QyCCzi9WZPhuXcU1hwr2bq

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Chores
  • Updated the testing setup to use the published rain-math-float version 0.1.12 while preserving the existing test-harness functionality.

[coderabbitai]

No actionable comments were generated in the recent review. 🎉

ℹ️ Recent review info

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Organization UI

Review profile: ASSERTIVE

Plan: Advanced

Run ID: 5f7274a1-aeb5-4feb-879a-43e1fe65b671

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 0a2f050 and 991cb0c.

⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (1)

• Cargo.lock is excluded by !**/*.lock

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• crates/tests/Cargo.toml

Included review availability: Your plan provides up to 1 included review per hour; 0 remain after this review.

---

Walkthrough

The test crate now resolves rain-math-float from published version 0.1.12 instead of a pinned Git revision. The test-harness feature remains enabled.

Changes

Test dependency update

Layer / File(s)	Summary
Use published rain-math-float package crates/tests/Cargo.toml	The dev-dependency now uses version 0.1.12 and retains the test-harness feature.

Estimated code review effort: 1 (Trivial) | ~2 minutes

Merge Risk: ⚪ Minimal · up to 991cb

Tests now use the published rain-math-float 0.1.12 package with the existing feature configuration preserved. The resolved package and covered Float usage indicate no remaining merge-blocking risk.

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 5

✅ Passed checks (5 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Description Check	✅ Passed	Check skipped - CodeRabbit’s high-level summary is enabled.
Title check	✅ Passed	The title clearly identifies the main change: pinning the published rain-math-float 0.1.12 dependency.
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check. Docstring coverage is scoped to functions touched by this diff. Analyzed 0 functions across 0…
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.

✨ Finishing Touches

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests
• Commit unit tests in branch 2026-09-08-bindings-0.1.12

---

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.}

[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