Bump rain-solmem 0.1.26 -> 0.1.28

[thedavidmeister]

Bumps rain-solmem 0.1.26 -> 0.1.28: pin, lock and the versioned import prefixes. rain.solmem has no change under src between the two tags.

QA

• Discriminating tests: existing suite at the new pin, 128 passed, 0 failed.
• Mutations applied: none; the diff is a dependency pin with no source delta upstream.
• Oracle: rain.solmem tag sol-v0.1.28 and Soldeer rain-solmem 0.1.28.
• Category check: dependency bump, no behaviour change.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

https://claude.ai/code/session_01QyCCzi9WZPhuXcU1hwr2bq

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Chores
  • Updated the underlying memory and array utility libraries to version 0.1.28.
  • 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: Team

Run ID: 2ffcc839-190e-41e8-95af-4b24ea4fc85c

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between cf122c6 and 90ae240.

⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (1)

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

📒 Files selected for processing (5)

• foundry.toml
• src/lib/bytecode/LibBytecode.sol
• test/src/lib/bytecode/LibBytecode.sourcePointer.t.sol
• test/src/lib/bytecode/LibBytecodeSlow.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-solmem Version Update

Layer / File(s)	Summary
Dependency and import alignment foundry.toml, src/lib/bytecode/LibBytecode.sol, test/src/lib/bytecode/*, test/src/lib/caller/LibContextSlow.sol	The project dependency and affected Solidity imports now reference rain-solmem version 0.1.28 instead of 0.1.26.

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

Merge Risk: ⚪ Minimal · up to 90ae2

This updates rain-solmem and aligns the affected production and test imports to version 0.1.28. The dependency resolution is consistent and the supplied test suite passes, with no current merge-blocking risk 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 describes the primary change: updating the rain-solmem dependency from 0.1.26 to 0.1.28.
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 2026-09-06-bump-solmem-0.1.28

---

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