refactor: Bump lodash from 4.17.23 to 4.18.1

[dependabot]

Bumps lodash from 4.17.23 to 4.18.1.

Release notes

Sourced from lodash's releases.

4.18.1

Bugs

Fixes a ReferenceError issue in lodash lodash-es lodash-amd and lodash.template when using the template and fromPairs functions from the modular builds. See lodash/lodash#6167

These defects were related to how lodash distributions are built from the main branch using https://github.com/lodash-archive/lodash-cli. When internal dependencies change inside lodash functions, equivalent updates need to be made to a mapping in the lodash-cli. (hey, it was ahead of its time once upon a time!). We know this, but we missed it in the last release. It's the kind of thing that passes in CI, but fails bc the build is not the same thing you tested.

There is no diff on main for this, but you can see the diffs for each of the npm packages on their respective branches:

• lodash: lodash/lodash@4.18.0-npm...4.18.1-npm
• lodash-es: lodash/lodash@4.18.0-es...4.18.1-es
• lodash-amd: lodash/lodash@4.18.0-amd...4.18.1-amd
• lodash.templatelodash/lodash@4.18.0-npm-packages...4.18.1-npm-packages

4.18.0

v4.18.0

Full Changelog: lodash/lodash@4.17.23...4.18.0

Security

_.unset / _.omit: Fixed prototype pollution via constructor/prototype path traversal (GHSA-f23m-r3pf-42rh, fe8d32e). Previously, array-wrapped path segments and primitive roots could bypass the existing guards, allowing deletion of properties from built-in prototypes. Now constructor and prototype are blocked unconditionally as non-terminal path keys, matching baseSet. Calls that previously returned true and deleted the property now return false and leave the target untouched.

_.template: Fixed code injection via imports keys (GHSA-r5fr-rjxr-66jc, CVE-2026-4800, 879aaa9). Fixes an incomplete patch for CVE-2021-23337. The variable option was validated against reForbiddenIdentifierChars but importsKeys was left unguarded, allowing code injection via the same Function() constructor sink. imports keys containing forbidden identifier characters now throw "Invalid imports option passed into _.template".

Docs

• Add security notice for _.template in threat model and API docs (#6099)
• Document lower > upper behavior in _.random (#6115)
• Fix quotes in _.compact jsdoc (#6090)

lodash.* modular packages

Diff

We have also regenerated and published a select number of the lodash.* modular packages.

These modular packages had fallen out of sync significantly from the minor/patch updates to lodash. Specifically, we have brought the following packages up to parity w/ the latest lodash release because they have had CVEs on them in the past:

• lodash.orderby
• lodash.tonumber
• lodash.trim
• lodash.trimend
• lodash.sortedindexby
• lodash.zipobjectdeep
• lodash.unset
• lodash.omit
• lodash.template

Commits

• cb0b9b9 release(patch): bump main to 4.18.1 (#6177)
• 75535f5 chore: prune stale advisory refs (#6170)
• 62e91bc docs: remove n_ Node.js < 6 REPL note from README (#6165)
• 59be2de release(minor): bump to 4.18.0 (#6161)
• af63457 fix: broken tests for _.template 879aaa9
• 1073a76 fix: linting issues
• 879aaa9 fix: validate imports keys in _.template
• fe8d32e fix: block prototype pollution in baseUnset via constructor/prototype traversal
• 18ba0a3 refactor(fromPairs): use baseAssignValue for consistent assignment (#6153)
• b819080 ci: add dist sync validation workflow (#6137)
• Additional commits viewable in compare view

[mtrezza]

@coderabbitai review

[coderabbitai]

✅ Actions performed

Review triggered.

Note: CodeRabbit is an incremental review system and does not re-review already reviewed commits. This command is applicable only when automatic reviews are paused.

[coderabbitai]

Warning

Rate limit exceeded

@mtrezza has exceeded the limit for the number of commits that can be reviewed per hour. Please wait 29 minutes and 57 seconds before requesting another review.

Your organization is not enrolled in usage-based pricing. Contact your admin to enable usage-based pricing to continue reviews beyond the rate limit, or try again in 29 minutes and 57 seconds.

⌛ How to resolve this issue?

After the wait time has elapsed, a review can be triggered using the @coderabbitai review command as a PR comment. Alternatively, push new commits to this PR.

We recommend that you space out your commits to avoid hitting the rate limit.

🚦 How do rate limits work?

CodeRabbit enforces hourly rate limits for each developer per organization.

Our paid plans have higher rate limits than the trial, open-source and free plans. In all cases, we re-allow further reviews after a brief timeout.

Please see our FAQ for further information.

ℹ️ Review info

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Organization UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

Run ID: 01c3af17-f712-4c57-a631-576eda73b354

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 6c2750a and c108af5.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• package-lock.json

✨ Finishing Touches

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests
• Commit unit tests in branch dependabot/npm_and_yarn/lodash-4.18.1

---

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.}

[parse-github-assistant]

🚀 Thanks for opening this pull request! We appreciate your effort in improving the project. Please let us know once your pull request is ready for review.

Tip

• Keep pull requests small. Large PRs will be rejected. Break complex features into smaller, incremental PRs.
• Use Test Driven Development. Write failing tests before implementing functionality. Ensure tests pass.
• Group code into logical blocks. Add a short comment before each block to explain its purpose.
• We offer conceptual guidance. Coding is up to you. PRs must be merge-ready for human review.
• Our review focuses on concept, not quality. PRs with code issues will be rejected. Use an AI agent.
• Human review time is precious. Avoid review ping-pong. Inspect and test your AI-generated code.

Note

Please respond to review comments from AI agents just like you would to comments from a human reviewer. Let the reviewer resolve their own comments, unless they have reviewed and accepted your commit, or agreed with your explanation for why the feedback was incorrect.

Caution

Pull requests must be written using an AI agent with human supervision. Pull requests written entirely by a human will likely be rejected, because of lower code quality, higher review effort and the higher risk of introducing bugs. Please note that AI review comments on this pull request alone do not satisfy this requirement.

[mtrezza]

@dependabot rebase