Bump rain-lib-hash 0.1.0 -> 0.1.10

[thedavidmeister]

What

Moves the rain-lib-hash pin from 0.1.0 to 0.1.10, the newest published
revision, and follows the versioned import path in the two files that use it.

Why

The org health dashboard draws this repo standing on a stale dependency: pinned
0.1.0 against 0.1.10 published. A stale pin means the closure this repo actually
resolves is not the one the graph draws.

LibContext hashes context rows through LibHashNoAlloc, and its slow-path
test twin does the same, so the pin is reached by the repo's own code rather
than carried for a dependency.

QA

• Discriminating tests: none added, and none are owed. Stripped of comments,
  src/LibHashNoAlloc.sol is byte-identical between v0.1.0 and sol-v0.1.10
  — the whole +51/-15 on that file is NatSpec, and no other src/ file
  changed. The existing suite is the discriminator for the substitution being
  inert, and it is green at 128 passed, 0 failed, unchanged from before the bump.
• Mutations applied: n/a. A mutation pass tests this repo's own behaviour, and
  this change adds none: no line of logic moves and no assertion changes. The
  behaviour reached through the bumped package is pinned by that package's own
  suite, which grew from 1 test file to 5 across these ten revisions.
• Oracle: the published package contents at each tag, compared directly, and the
  soldeer registry for what the newest revision is. Not the release notes: a
  claim about what changed is checkable against the source, and it was checked.
• Category check: the ask is a stale pin. Covered: the pin moves to the newest
  published revision, both import paths follow it so no stale copy can resolve,
  soldeer.lock records the new url, checksum and integrity, and the suite runs
  green against the installed 0.1.10 tree.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

https://claude.ai/code/session_01V8ViHcKLVk2YoS2joH4HdN

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Chores
  • Updated the hash library dependency to version 0.1.10.
  • Updated related library references to remain compatible with the newer dependency version.
  • No user-facing functionality or public interfaces changed.

[coderabbitai]

No actionable comments were generated in the recent review. 🎉

ℹ️ Recent review info

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Advanced

Run ID: f67846b7-b204-4c62-a4dd-d420c0cccbab

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 3e19019 and 0c0e531.

⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (1)

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

📒 Files selected for processing (3)

• foundry.toml
• src/lib/caller/LibContext.sol
• test/src/lib/caller/LibContextSlow.sol

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

---

📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

Changes

rain-lib-hash Dependency Update

Layer / File(s)	Summary
Update dependency and imports foundry.toml, src/lib/caller/LibContext.sol, test/src/lib/caller/LibContextSlow.sol	The rain-lib-hash dependency and its production and test import paths are updated from 0.1.0 to 0.1.10. Library logic remains unchanged.

Priority: ⬇️ Low

Estimated code review effort: 1 (Trivial) | ~5 minutes

Change: Other

Merge Risk: ⚪ Minimal · up to 0c0e5

The dependency update is internally consistent and the reported test suite passes, so no merge-blocking risk is identified.

🚥 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 and concisely identifies the main change: updating the rain-lib-hash dependency from 0.1.0 to 0.1.10.
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 bump-lib-hash

---

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