hotfix: no-submodules runs rainix-static from the composite's own checkout

[thedavidmeister]

URGENT: #256's composite resolves github:rainlanguage/rainix/${RAINIX_SHA}#rainix-static, but consumer repos pin RAINIX_SHA to shas that predate the package — attribute missing, every consumer sol/rs-static is currently red (observed on erc4626 #175/#235 retriggers). Fix: path: flake ref to the composite's own checkout ($GITHUB_ACTION_PATH repo root) — version-locked to the action, no network ref, no sha skew. Smoke-verified locally via the same path: invocation.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Chores
  • Updated the automated check to run from the action’s local checkout instead of referencing an external source.
  • Simplified how the rainix-static check is launched, keeping the execution path consistent within the workflow.

[coderabbitai]

Warning

Review limit reached

@thedavidmeister, you've reached your PR review limit, so we couldn't start this review.

Next review available in: 56 minutes

Enable usage-based reviews in Billing to review now. Otherwise, wait until the next included review is available.
You're only billed for reviews past your plan's rate limits ($0.25/file).

How can I continue?

After more reviews become available, a review can be triggered using the @coderabbitai review command as a PR comment. Alternatively, push new commits to this PR.

To avoid repeated limits, reduce automatic review volume by pausing incremental auto-reviews earlier, using label-based review opt-in, excluding WIP or generated PR titles, or requesting reviews manually when the PR is ready. If your team needs uninterrupted high-volume reviews, an organization admin can enable usage-based reviews.

How do review limits work?

CodeRabbit enforces per-developer PR review limits for each organization. Most developers receive the normal plan review availability.

For paid Pro and Pro+ PR reviews, CodeRabbit uses adaptive limits for sustained high-volume activity. When a developer's recent PR review activity reaches the 95th percentile or higher among CodeRabbit users, additional reviews become available more gradually as earlier reviews age out of the rolling window.

Please refer docs for additional details.

Review details

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

Run ID: 66aac51d-4083-4b8a-b8dc-335dfd72fb0a

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 63d8498 and d628917.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• .github/actions/no-submodules/action.yml

📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

The composite GitHub Action no-submodules is updated to invoke rainix-static using a nix run command sourced from a local flake path derived from $GITHUB_ACTION_PATH, replacing the previous github:rainlanguage/rainix flake reference that relied on RAINIX_SHA.

Changes

Flake Reference Update

Layer / File(s)	Summary
Local flake path for rainix-static .github/actions/no-submodules/action.yml	The nix run invocation now uses a path: flake ref computed from the action's checkout directory instead of a github: ref tied to RAINIX_SHA; adjacent comments updated accordingly.

Estimated code review effort: 1 (Trivial) | ~3 minutes

Possibly related PRs

• rainlanguage/rainix#249: Also modifies CI handling of the RAINIX_SHA flake pinning mechanism used to source rainix-static.

🚥 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 states the hotfix and the main behavior change: no-submodules now runs rainix-static from the composite’s own checkout.
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.

✨ Finishing Touches

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests
• Commit unit tests in branch hotfix/no-submodules-path-ref

---

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

[coderabbitai]

Tip

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

SIZE=S