2026 01 21 deps

[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 several library submodule references to newer commits for maintenance.
  • Minor import adjustment to include additional constants (no behavior changes).

• Tests

  • Refreshed gas/test snapshots to reflect updated measured values; no functional changes.

_{✏️ Tip: You can customize this high-level summary in your review settings.}

[coderabbitai]

Walkthrough

Updated three submodule pointers, refreshed a gas test snapshot, and added two constant imports to src/lib/LibWillOverflow.sol. No functional logic or public API/signature changes detected.

Changes

Cohort / File(s)	Summary
Submodule updates lib/forge-std, lib/rain.math.saturating, lib/rain.string	Updated tracked commit pointers for three submodules; no observable behavior or API changes.
Test snapshot .gas-snapshot	Replaced many snapshot entries with updated values (runs, μ, ~). Pure test data update.
Lib import change src/lib/LibWillOverflow.sol	Added imports FLAG_MAX_INT and FLAG_ROUND_UP from FixedPointDecimalConstants.sol; no logic, signature, or control-flow changes.

Estimated code review effort

🎯 2 (Simple) | ⏱️ ~10 minutes

Possibly related PRs

• fix build #13: Overlaps with .gas-snapshot and src/lib/LibWillOverflow.sol changes; closely related at file level.
• 2025 10 21 audit #12: Updates the same submodule pointers (lib/forge-std, lib/rain.math.saturating), directly related.
• update deps #14: Also updates lib/rain.math.saturating and lib/rain.string pointers; related to the submodule changes.

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 2 | ❌ 1

❌ Failed checks (1 inconclusive)

Check name	Status	Explanation	Resolution
Title check	❓ Inconclusive	The title '2026 01 21 deps' is vague and generic, using a date pattern that doesn't clearly describe the actual changes (submodule updates and gas snapshot changes).	Use a more descriptive title that clarifies the main objective, such as 'Update dependencies and gas snapshots' or 'Bump submodule versions'.

✅ 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 changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check.

_{✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings.}

---

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 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]

The author of this PR is on the CodeRabbit Free Plan. In order to use the Chat feature, please upgrade the PR author to CodeRabbit Pro by visiting https://app.coderabbit.ai/login.