Skip to content

chore(effect): bump published provider/sandbox/agent pins to 0.4.25/0.4.28/0.12.3 - #265

Merged
ThomasK33 merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
effect-pins-sep28
Sep 28, 2026
Merged

ThomasK33 merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
effect-pins-sep28

Conversation

@ThomasK33

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Bumps the private, unpublished @coder/ai-sdk-effect package's pinned Coder dependencies to the just-published releases (same shape as #260):

Package Old New
@coder/ai-sdk-provider 0.4.24 0.4.25
@coder/ai-sdk-sandbox 0.4.27 0.4.28
@coder/ai-sdk-agent 0.12.2 0.12.3

Files (exactly four):

  1. packages/effect/package.json: the three pins. @ai-sdk/provider stays 4.0.18 (npm view: provider 0.4.25 and agent 0.12.3 both depend on exactly 4.0.18; agent 0.12.3 and sandbox 0.4.28 declare ws ^8.22.0, which main already resolves to 8.22.0).
  2. pnpm-lock.yaml: only the three @coder/* entries move; single @ai-sdk/provider 4.0.18.
  3. pnpm-workspace.yaml: the three exact own-package minimumReleaseAgeExclude entries follow the new versions.
  4. packages/effect/README.md: the three pinned-version rows.

Validation

  • rm -rf node_modules && pnpm install --frozen-lockfile with the final three-entry exclusion list: pass. An uncached scratch-store frozen install also reports "Lockfile passes supply-chain policies".
  • pnpm check, pnpm -r build, pnpm -r test, pnpm publint, pnpm attw: all pass (Node 26.10.0).
  • Live against dogfood (v2.37.3-devel+957aefa475): packages/agent e2e 7/7, packages/effect e2e 2/2.

No published package changes; packages/effect is outside release-please, so no release PR is expected.


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

….4.28/0.12.3

Bump the private @coder/ai-sdk-effect package's pinned published Coder
dependencies to the releases cut from the ai 7.0.118 dependency batch:
@coder/ai-sdk-provider 0.4.25, @coder/ai-sdk-sandbox 0.4.28 and
@coder/ai-sdk-agent 0.12.3. Only these three lockfile entries move, and the
three exact minimumReleaseAgeExclude entries follow the new versions.

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: Ifa5d8b057d9edb76d141c1c66c6e55aac75c9545
@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 28, 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 2026-09-28T07:06:52.498310Z ad9047d Manual request
🔒 Security Review ✅ Completed 2026-09-28T07:08:24.861539Z ad9047d 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. Another round soon, please!

Reviewed commit: ad9047d7a9

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: ad9047d7a9

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 28, 2026
Merged via the queue into main with commit 4731f93 Sep 28, 2026
6 checks passed
@ThomasK33
ThomasK33 deleted the effect-pins-sep28 branch September 28, 2026 07:17
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