Skip to content

chore(effect): bump published provider/sandbox/agent pins to 0.4.24/0.4.27/0.12.2 - #260

Merged
ThomasK33 merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
effect-pins-sep26b
Sep 26, 2026
Merged

ThomasK33 merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
effect-pins-sep26b

Conversation

@ThomasK33

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Bump the private, unpublished @coder/ai-sdk-effect package's Coder pins to the releases published on 2026-09-26 (follows #255):

Package Old New
@coder/ai-sdk-provider 0.4.23 0.4.24
@coder/ai-sdk-sandbox 0.4.26 0.4.27
@coder/ai-sdk-agent 0.12.1 0.12.2

Four files only: packages/effect/package.json, pnpm-lock.yaml, pnpm-workspace.yaml (the three exact minimumReleaseAgeExclude entries, authorized own-package 24h exception), packages/effect/README.md (pin table).

  • @ai-sdk/provider stays 4.0.18; npm view shows provider 0.4.24 and agent 0.12.2 both depend on exactly 4.0.18. The lockfile holds a single @ai-sdk/provider@4.0.18.
  • Lockfile diff touches only the three @coder/* entries; integrity hashes match npm view … dist.integrity. No other @ai-sdk/* version moved (main already resolves provider 0.4.24's @ai-sdk/anthropic ^4.0.65 / openai-compatible ^3.0.57).
  • Empty-cache pnpm install --frozen-lockfile passes with the final three-entry exclude list.

Validation (Node 26.10.0): pnpm check, pnpm -r build, pnpm -r test, pnpm publint, pnpm attw all pass. Live against dogfood.cdr.dev: agent e2e 7/7, effect e2e 2/2.


Generated with xum • Model: anthropic:claude-opus-5-5 • Thinking: high

….4.27/0.12.2

Bump the private @coder/ai-sdk-effect package's published Coder pins to
the releases cut later on 2026-09-26: @coder/ai-sdk-provider 0.4.24,
@coder/ai-sdk-sandbox 0.4.27, @coder/ai-sdk-agent 0.12.2. @ai-sdk/provider
stays 4.0.18, matching both published packages' exact dependency. The three
exact minimumReleaseAgeExclude entries move to the new versions (own-package
24h exception), and the README pin table follows.

Signed-off-by: Thomas Kosiewski <tk@coder.com>

---
_Generated with [`xum`](https://github.com/coder/xum) • Model: `anthropic:claude-opus-5-5` • Thinking: `high`_

Change-Id: I905d82db75629724ecdb997f3453f9067d661604
Signed-off-by: Thomas Kosiewski <tk@coder.com>
@ThomasK33

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

@codex review

@ThomasK33

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

@codex security review

@chatgpt-codex-connector

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot commented Sep 26, 2026 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Codex Review Summary

This comment shows the latest Codex review activity on this pull request.

Review Status Commit Review trigger
📝 Code Review ✅ Completed 2026-09-26T21:39:12.288745Z 3abab17 Manual request
🔒 Security Review ✅ Completed 2026-09-26T21:41:13.119507Z 3abab17 Manual request
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

  • Open a pull request for review
  • Mark a draft as ready
  • Comment "@codex review" or "@codex security review".

Codex reacts with 👀 while any review is running, comments if it has suggestions, and reacts with 👍 once all reviews finish with no findings.

@chatgpt-codex-connector

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. Bravo.

Reviewed commit: 3abab17dd1

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

  • Open a pull request for review
  • Mark a draft as ready
  • Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".

@chatgpt-codex-connector

Copy link
Copy Markdown

🛡️ Codex Security Review

Security review completed. No security issues were found in this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 3abab17dd1

View security finding report

Only the user who started this review can view the report in Codex.

ℹ️ About Codex security reviews in GitHub

This is an experimental Codex feature. Security reviews are triggered when:

  • You comment "@codex security review"
  • A regular code review gets triggered (for example, "@codex review" or when a PR is opened), and you’re opted in so security review runs alongside code review

Once complete, Codex will leave suggestions, or a comment if no findings are found.

@ThomasK33
ThomasK33 added this pull request to the merge queue Sep 26, 2026
Merged via the queue into main with commit 429f197 Sep 26, 2026
6 checks passed
@ThomasK33
ThomasK33 deleted the effect-pins-sep26b branch September 26, 2026 21:49
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.

1 participant