int

[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 the underlying interpreter interface submodule to the latest revision to stay current with upstream changes.
  • No user-facing functionality has changed; behavior and control flow remain the same.
  • Compatibility and stability are unaffected, and no action is required from users.
  • This maintenance update helps ensure continued alignment with the upstream project without altering features.

[coderabbitai]

Walkthrough

Updated the git submodule pointer for lib/rain.interpreter.interface from commit 456c236536018c8067308287fbc3f9544a291120 to f777a1c769433fb63dafe51db783bc64e001a0be. No functional code or control-flow changes; no changes to exported/public entities.

Changes

Cohort / File(s)	Summary of Changes
Submodule pointer update lib/rain.interpreter.interface	Advanced submodule reference from 456c2365… to f777a1c7…; no code changes within this repo.

Estimated code review effort

🎯 1 (Trivial) | ⏱️ ~2 minutes

Possibly related PRs

• 2025 10 08 int bump #42 — Updates the same submodule pointer, moving to the prior commit (456c236…), directly adjacent to this change.
• update int #41 — Similar submodule ref-only update for lib/rain.interpreter.interface with no API edits.
• bump interface #36 — Performs the same kind of submodule pointer advancement for lib/rain.interpreter.interface.

Pre-merge checks and finishing touches

❌ Failed checks (1 warning)

Check name	Status	Explanation	Resolution
Title Check	⚠️ Warning	The pull request title “int” is a single generic word that does not convey the update of the submodule pointer for lib/rain.interpreter.interface and fails to describe the primary change in the changeset.	Please update the title to clearly summarize the main change, for example “Update lib/rain.interpreter.interface submodule to commit f777a1c769433”, so that it immediately conveys the intent and scope of the change.

✅ 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 2025-10-10-int

---

📜 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 26d2a01 and dc89164.

⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (1)

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

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• lib/rain.interpreter.interface (1 hunks)

---

_{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.

🧩 Analysis chain

🏁 Script executed:

#!/bin/bash
# Get PR details and changes
gh pr view 43 --json additions,deletions,changedFiles,commits

# Get the diff to see what actually changed
gh pr diff 43

# Get list of changed files
gh pr view 43 --json files --jq '.files[].path'

Length of output: 1026

---

SIZE=S