remove old workaround for compilation#97
Conversation
|
Warning Rate limit exceeded
⌛ How to resolve this issue?After the wait time has elapsed, a review can be triggered using the We recommend that you space out your commits to avoid hitting the rate limit. 🚦 How do rate limits work?CodeRabbit enforces hourly rate limits for each developer per organization. Our paid plans have higher rate limits than the trial, open-source and free plans. In all cases, we re-allow further reviews after a brief timeout. Please see our FAQ for further information. WalkthroughThis pull request reorganizes the deprecated interface directory structure with new v1/v2 versioning, removes legacy utility libraries (LibDeployerDiscoverable, LibEncodedDispatch), and upgrades core evaluable types from EvaluableV2/V3 to EvaluableV4 alongside interface versions IInterpreterV4/IInterpreterStoreV3. Changes
Estimated code review effort🎯 3 (Moderate) | ⏱️ ~25 minutes Possibly related PRs
🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 3✅ Passed checks (3 passed)
✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings. ✨ Finishing touches🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
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. Comment |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Caution
Some comments are outside the diff and can’t be posted inline due to platform limitations.
⚠️ Outside diff range comments (1)
src/interface/IInterpreterCallerV4.sol (1)
38-38:⚠️ Potential issue | 🟡 MinorStale NatSpec: references
IInterpreterStoreV2but should beIInterpreterStoreV3.The interface comment on line 38 mentions
IInterpreterStoreV2, butEvaluableV4(line 27) usesIInterpreterStoreV3. This appears to be a pre-existing issue but worth fixing while you're touching this file.📝 Suggested fix
-/// - OPTIONALLY set state on the associated `IInterpreterStoreV2`. +/// - OPTIONALLY set state on the associated `IInterpreterStoreV3`.
|
@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:
Review Effort: Would have taken 5-10 minutes Examples:
Medium (M)Characteristics:
Review Effort: Would have taken 15-30 minutes Examples:
Large (L)Characteristics:
Review Effort: Would have taken 45+ minutes Examples:
Additional Factors to ConsiderWhen deciding between sizes, also consider:
Notes:
|
|
Tip For best results, initiate chat on the files or code changes. SIZE=M |
Motivation
Solution
Checks
By submitting this for review, I'm confirming I've done the following:
Summary by CodeRabbit
Release Notes
Chores
Refactor