Conversation
📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughThis pull request updates error-prone related dependencies and improves documentation formatting. The net-ltgt-errorprone plugin is bumped from version 4.3.0 to 4.4.0, and error-prone-annotations is updated from 2.45.0 to 2.46.0 in the gradle/libs.versions.toml file. Additionally, a comment in build.gradle is modified to capitalize "Error Prone" and adjust the wording for consistency. These changes do not alter any method signatures, public APIs, or execution logic. 🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 1✅ Passed checks (1 passed)
✏️ 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. Comment |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🤖 Fix all issues with AI agents
In @gradle/libs.versions.toml:
- Line 7: The net-ltgt-errorprone plugin version is incorrect (uses "4.4.0"
which doesn't exist); update the dependency entry named net-ltgt-errorprone in
gradle/libs.versions.toml to use version "4.3.0" instead so the declared version
matches the latest available release.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: ASSERTIVE
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
build.gradlegradle/libs.versions.toml
🧰 Additional context used
🧠 Learnings (1)
📓 Common learnings
Learnt from: mernst
Repo: typetools/checker-framework PR: 7354
File: annotation-file-utilities/tests/LocalMultipleManyMethodsShifted.java:14-14
Timestamp: 2025-11-02T02:18:00.536Z
Learning: In the Checker Framework repository, when doing refactoring PRs (such as preferring isEmpty() over size() comparisons), test files should not be changed. Tests should remain stable to preserve their exact patterns for annotation processing and bytecode verification purposes.
🔇 Additional comments (1)
build.gradle (1)
205-207: LGTM!The comment capitalization has been corrected to use the proper product name "Error Prone" for consistency.
This comment was marked as off-topic.
This comment was marked as off-topic.
|
@shubham5080 If that is the way that you are asking for help -- spamming an unrelated issue and giving no details about what you need help with -- then you are not a good candidate for GSoC. |
No description provided.