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 internal submodule pointers to newer states. No user-facing changes or new functionality.

• Documentation

  • Expanded annotation/licensing tooling paths so additional audit files are considered for reuse/license checks.

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

[coderabbitai]

Walkthrough

Updates tracked commits for two submodules and adds an audit path to REUSE.toml. No functional code or public API changes.

Changes

Cohort / File(s)	Summary
Submodule pointer updates lib/rain.math.saturating, lib/rain.string	Advanced tracked commits for both submodules (no source/API changes in this repo).
REUSE config REUSE.toml	Added the path pattern audit/**/ to the annotations path list.

Sequence Diagram(s)

Estimated code review effort

🎯 2 (Simple) | ⏱️ ~10 minutes

Possibly related PRs

• 2026 01 21 deps #15: Updates the same submodule pointers to intermediate commits this PR advances further.
• 2025 10 21 audit #12: Modifies the same submodule pointers for lib/rain.math.saturating and lib/rain.string.
• update deps #14: Updates identical submodule pointers to different target commits.

🚥 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 does not clearly convey the main changes; it appears to be a date-based naming convention without meaningful context about dependencies or updates.	Replace with a more descriptive title that clearly indicates what dependencies were updated (e.g., 'Update rain.math.saturating and rain.string submodule references').

✅ 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.}

[coderabbitai]

Actionable comments posted: 1

🤖 Fix all issues with AI agents

In `@lib/rain.math.saturating`:
- Line 1: The submodule lib/rain.math.saturating points to a commit hash that
doesn't exist upstream; update the submodule reference so it uses a valid,
accessible commit/branch/tag. Open the repository's submodule configuration
(lib/rain.math.saturating in .gitmodules and the submodule entry in the index),
correct the commit hash or switch the submodule to a known-good branch/tag in
the upstream repo, run git submodule sync and git submodule update --init
--recursive (or update the superproject commit to one that contains a valid
submodule SHA) to ensure initialization succeeds.

[coderabbitai]

⚠️ Potential issue | 🔴 Critical

🧩 Analysis chain

🏁 Script executed:

#!/bin/bash
# Inspect submodule commit range and summarize changes
git submodule status lib/rain.math.saturating
echo "---"
git -C lib/rain.math.saturating log --oneline -n 20
echo "---"
git -C lib/rain.math.saturating show --stat 4575cd697c155faaab7d45b2f2197dbf2b834f4b

Repository: rainlanguage/rain.math.fixedpoint

Length of output: 369

---

Submodule update points to a non-existent or inaccessible commit.

The target commit 4575cd697c155faaab7d45b2f2197dbf2b834f4b for lib/rain.math.saturating does not exist or is not accessible in the upstream repository (error: "not our ref"). This will cause the submodule to fail initialization. Verify the commit hash is correct or use a valid commit from the upstream repository.

🤖 Prompt for AI Agents

In `@lib/rain.math.saturating` at line 1, The submodule lib/rain.math.saturating
points to a commit hash that doesn't exist upstream; update the submodule
reference so it uses a valid, accessible commit/branch/tag. Open the
repository's submodule configuration (lib/rain.math.saturating in .gitmodules
and the submodule entry in the index), correct the commit hash or switch the
submodule to a known-good branch/tag in the upstream repo, run git submodule
sync and git submodule update --init --recursive (or update the superproject
commit to one that contains a valid submodule SHA) to ensure initialization
succeeds.

[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.