Skip to content

Pin tagged version of lockctx#8420

Merged
jordanschalm merged 1 commit intomasterfrom
jord/tag-lockctx
Feb 18, 2026
Merged

Pin tagged version of lockctx#8420
jordanschalm merged 1 commit intomasterfrom
jord/tag-lockctx

Conversation

@jordanschalm
Copy link
Member

@jordanschalm jordanschalm commented Feb 18, 2026

Pin https://github.com/jordanschalm/lockctx/releases/tag/v0.1.0 (same commit, but referenced via tag rather than commit hash).

Summary by CodeRabbit

  • Chores
    • Updated internal dependencies to stable semantic versions for improved consistency and reliability.

@jordanschalm jordanschalm requested a review from a team as a code owner February 18, 2026 17:26
@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

Dependency Review

The following issues were found:
  • ✅ 0 vulnerable package(s)
  • ✅ 0 package(s) with incompatible licenses
  • ✅ 0 package(s) with invalid SPDX license definitions
  • ⚠️ 3 package(s) with unknown licenses.
See the Details below.

License Issues

go.mod

PackageVersionLicenseIssue Type
github.com/jordanschalm/lockctx0.1.0NullUnknown License

insecure/go.mod

PackageVersionLicenseIssue Type
github.com/jordanschalm/lockctx0.1.0NullUnknown License

integration/go.mod

PackageVersionLicenseIssue Type
github.com/jordanschalm/lockctx0.1.0NullUnknown License

OpenSSF Scorecard

PackageVersionScoreDetails
gomod/github.com/jordanschalm/lockctx 0.1.0 UnknownUnknown
gomod/github.com/jordanschalm/lockctx 0.1.0 UnknownUnknown
gomod/github.com/jordanschalm/lockctx 0.1.0 UnknownUnknown

Scanned Files

  • go.mod
  • insecure/go.mod
  • integration/go.mod

@coderabbitai
Copy link
Contributor

coderabbitai bot commented Feb 18, 2026

No actionable comments were generated in the recent review. 🎉


📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

Dependency version bumps across three Go module files updating the github.com/jordanschalm/lockctx library from a pseudo-version commit hash to the official semantic version v0.1.0 release.

Changes

Cohort / File(s) Summary
Dependency Update
go.mod, insecure/go.mod, integration/go.mod
Updated github.com/jordanschalm/lockctx from pseudo-version v0.0.0-20250412215529-226f85c10956 to semantic version v0.1.0

Estimated code review effort

🎯 1 (Trivial) | ⏱️ ~2 minutes

Poem

🐰 A version bump, so clean and neat,
From pseudo hashes, oh what a treat!
To v0.1.0, semantic and bright,
lockctx dances in the moonlight ✨

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 3
✅ Passed checks (3 passed)
Check name Status Explanation
Description Check ✅ Passed Check skipped - CodeRabbit’s high-level summary is enabled.
Title check ✅ Passed The title 'Pin tagged version of lockctx' accurately and concisely describes the main change: updating the lockctx dependency from a commit-based pseudo-version to the proper v0.1.0 semantic version tag.
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.

✨ Finishing Touches
🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
  • Create PR with unit tests
  • Post copyable unit tests in a comment
  • Commit unit tests in branch jord/tag-lockctx

Tip

Issue Planner is now in beta. Read the docs and try it out! Share your feedback on Discord.


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

Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.

@codecov-commenter
Copy link

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.

📢 Thoughts on this report? Let us know!

@jordanschalm jordanschalm added this pull request to the merge queue Feb 18, 2026
Merged via the queue into master with commit f377af7 Feb 18, 2026
61 checks passed
@jordanschalm jordanschalm deleted the jord/tag-lockctx branch February 18, 2026 18:34
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants

Comments