Skip to content

feat: prep for release v2.4.0-beta#3919

Merged
mkurapov merged 2 commits into
mainfrom
max/rop-36
May 7, 2026
Merged

feat: prep for release v2.4.0-beta#3919
mkurapov merged 2 commits into
mainfrom
max/rop-36

Conversation

@mkurapov
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@mkurapov mkurapov commented May 6, 2026

Changes proposed in this pull request

Context

Fixes ROP-36

Checklist

  • Related issues linked using fixes #number
  • Tests added/updated
  • Make sure that all checks pass
  • Bruno collection updated (if necessary)
  • Documentation issue created with user-docs label (if necessary)
  • OpenAPI specs updated (if necessary)

@netlify
Copy link
Copy Markdown

netlify Bot commented May 6, 2026

Deploy Preview for brilliant-pasca-3e80ec ready!

Name Link
🔨 Latest commit cf66390
🔍 Latest deploy log https://app.netlify.com/projects/brilliant-pasca-3e80ec/deploys/69fb3bf6b0bc7a0008868591
😎 Deploy Preview https://deploy-preview-3919--brilliant-pasca-3e80ec.netlify.app
📱 Preview on mobile
Toggle QR Code...

QR Code

Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.

To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify project configuration.

@github-actions github-actions Bot added the pkg: documentation Changes in the documentation package. label May 6, 2026
@github-actions
Copy link
Copy Markdown

github-actions Bot commented May 6, 2026

🚀 Performance Test Results

Test Configuration:

  • VUs: 4
  • Duration: 1m0s

Test Metrics:

  • Requests/s: 48.93
  • Iterations/s: 16.30
  • Failed Requests: 0.00% (0 of 2941)
📜 Logs

> performance@1.0.0 run-tests:testenv /home/runner/work/rafiki/rafiki/test/performance
> ./scripts/run-tests.sh -e test -k -q --vus 4 --duration 1m

Cloud Nine GraphQL API is up: http://localhost:3101/graphql
Cloud Nine Wallet Address is up: http://localhost:3100/
Happy Life Bank Address is up: http://localhost:4100/
cloud-nine-wallet-test-backend already set
cloud-nine-wallet-test-auth already set
happy-life-bank-test-backend already set
happy-life-bank-test-auth already set
     data_received..................: 1.1 MB 18 kB/s
     data_sent......................: 2.3 MB 38 kB/s
     http_req_blocked...............: avg=6.71µs   min=2.01µs   med=5.38µs   max=507.01µs p(90)=6.81µs   p(95)=7.39µs  
     http_req_connecting............: avg=381ns    min=0s       med=0s       max=465.37µs p(90)=0s       p(95)=0s      
     http_req_duration..............: avg=81.15ms  min=8.32ms   med=66.85ms  max=447.41ms p(90)=137.02ms p(95)=164.18ms
       { expected_response:true }...: avg=81.15ms  min=8.32ms   med=66.85ms  max=447.41ms p(90)=137.02ms p(95)=164.18ms
     http_req_failed................: 0.00%  ✓ 0         ✗ 2941
     http_req_receiving.............: avg=88.09µs  min=28.72µs  med=77.08µs  max=1.57ms   p(90)=115.81µs p(95)=146.43µs
     http_req_sending...............: avg=35.79µs  min=8.6µs    med=27.85µs  max=2.39ms   p(90)=38.95µs  p(95)=54.82µs 
     http_req_tls_handshaking.......: avg=0s       min=0s       med=0s       max=0s       p(90)=0s       p(95)=0s      
     http_req_waiting...............: avg=81.03ms  min=8.15ms   med=66.72ms  max=447.34ms p(90)=136.95ms p(95)=164.01ms
     http_reqs......................: 2941   48.928655/s
     iteration_duration.............: avg=245.09ms min=164.25ms med=228.82ms max=980.79ms p(90)=307.07ms p(95)=356.34ms
     iterations.....................: 980    16.304006/s
     vus............................: 4      min=4       max=4 
     vus_max........................: 4      min=4       max=4 

@mkurapov mkurapov marked this pull request as ready for review May 6, 2026 14:21
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@BlairCurrey BlairCurrey left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks ok just had some non-blocking questions.

Why are the docs regenerated? If there are content differences I think this means the Spanish ones are out of date - is that accounted for anywhere (task to update?)

Whats the reason for doing the axios override? I realize this override pre-exists the PR and we are just updating it - I guess I'm asking more for my general knowledge. Is there a transitive dependency or something we are trying to control?

@mkurapov
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

mkurapov commented May 7, 2026

Why are the docs regenerated? If there are content differences I think this means the Spanish ones are out of date - is that accounted for anywhere (task to update?)

They do not automatically get built from the GraphQL schemas, so I built them manually. I will updating the links for Spanish one in a separate issue.

Whats the reason for doing the axios override?

This is to fix the vulnerabilities listed in the description, making sure that the minimum version across all of the packages in the repo is an updated, non-vulnerable one via overrides

@mkurapov mkurapov merged commit 8a5aef8 into main May 7, 2026
58 checks passed
@mkurapov mkurapov deleted the max/rop-36 branch May 7, 2026 16:17
@BlairCurrey
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

BlairCurrey commented May 7, 2026

This is to fix the vulnerabilities listed in the description, making sure that the minimum version across all of the packages in the repo is an updated, non-vulnerable one via overrides

What I'm wondering is why it's an override and not just bumping the individual package versions.

My understanding of overrides was that they were for forcing versions of packages we can't directly control ourselves. And ideally temporarily. But maybe we are intentionally using it to ensure the same version is used across packages? Im not sure that's a good idea. Pnpm has a catalog feature that can handle this and in their docs for it they directly state this would be misusing overrides: https://github.com/pnpm/rfcs/blob/main/text/0001-catalogs.md#comparison-to-overridesresolutions

Using this feature should be considered a hack in most cases, something that is done temporarily while waiting for a bug to be fixed, or to avoid excessive duplication caused by an overly strict meta-dependency specifier.

The original override was "axios@>=0.8.1 <0.28.0": ">=0.28.0". This preserves the option to use pre <0.28.0. If we are mandating everything is >= some version then I dont see the point of the override vs. pinning everything above the vulnerability. Locally it appears that pinning all our packages directly resolves the audit warning (using pnpm audit, not trivy mind you).

Frankly IDK if we even need catalogs. We can just maintain the version directly across pacakges imo. We can still easily upgrade simultaneously with pnpm up -r axios.

@mkurapov
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

mkurapov commented May 7, 2026

@BlairCurrey good point - for some reason I disregarded that we have it as a direct dependency, even though we do in a few of the packages.

We should to do both: upgrade/pin the version across the dependencies, and also keep the override because there a few dependencies, mostly dev that have axios as a dependency themselves.

Catalogs might be a great option for us in the rafiki-v2 repo, given the amount of packages we have.

@mkurapov
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

mkurapov commented May 7, 2026

Made PR for upgrading and pinning axios version ☝️

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

pkg: documentation Changes in the documentation package.

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants