Minimize Alloy features for sqlite-web consumers

[findolor]

Summary

• Disable Alloy default features for the float crate and workspace dependency.
• Keep only the ABI/sol-types JSON features needed by the Rust bindings.
• Avoid pulling Alloy provider/RPC/consensus crates that conflict with the Revm 36 dependency graph used by sqlite-web.
• Commit the resulting lockfile/static formatting updates required by CI.

Test plan

• cargo check -p rain-math-float
• cargo fmt --all -- --check
• nix develop -c rainix-rs-static
• GitHub rs-static / rs-static
• Verified from sqlite-web against this submodule commit (1586a5973882b6acb72c2677c29ad23c4c6f85ef):
  • cargo check --tests -p sqlite-web-core
  • cargo check --tests -p sqlite-web
  • nix develop -c build-submodules
  • prior full sqlite-web transaction validation listed in sqlite-web#28

Notes

• GitHub rainix-sol / test / test is still failing on production deployment assertions that are also failing on recent main runs.

[coderabbitai]

Walkthrough

The PR updates alloy feature flags in the workspace manifest and in crates/float for both normal and dev dependencies. It disables default features and replaces json-rpc with json and json-abi.

Changes

Alloy dependency feature changes

Layer / File(s)	Summary
Manifest feature flags Cargo.toml, crates/float/Cargo.toml	The alloy workspace dependency and the crates/float dependency entries switch to default-features = false and enable json and json-abi instead of json-rpc; the crate’s dev-dependency entry is updated the same way.

🎯 1 (Trivial) | ⏱️ ~3 minutes

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 5

✅ Passed checks (5 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Title check	✅ Passed	The title clearly matches the main change: reducing Alloy features for sqlite-web consumers.
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check.
Linked Issues check	✅ Passed	Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request.
Out of Scope Changes check	✅ Passed	Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request.
Description Check	✅ Passed	Check skipped - CodeRabbit’s high-level summary is enabled.

✨ Finishing Touches

📝 Generate docstrings

• Create stacked PR
• Commit on current branch

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests
• Commit unit tests in branch sqlite-web-alloy-feature-minimal

---

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.}

[findolor]

• Minimize Alloy features for sqlite-web consumers #247 👈 (View in Graphite)
• main

This stack of pull requests is managed by Graphite. Learn more about stacking.

[github-actions]

@coderabbitai assess this PR size classification for the totality of the PR with the following criterias and report it in your comment:

S/M/L PR Classification Guidelines:

This guide helps classify merged pull requests by effort and complexity rather than just line count. The goal is to assess the difficulty and scope of changes after they have been completed.

Small (S)

Characteristics:

• Simple bug fixes, typos, or minor refactoring
• Single-purpose changes affecting 1-2 files
• Documentation updates
• Configuration tweaks
• Changes that require minimal context to review

Review Effort: Would have taken 5-10 minutes

Examples:

• Fix typo in variable name
• Update README with new instructions
• Adjust configuration values
• Simple one-line bug fixes
• Import statement cleanup

Medium (M)

Characteristics:

• Feature additions or enhancements
• Refactoring that touches multiple files but maintains existing behavior
• Breaking changes with backward compatibility
• Changes requiring some domain knowledge to review

Review Effort: Would have taken 15-30 minutes

Examples:

• Add new feature or component
• Refactor common utility functions
• Update dependencies with minor breaking changes
• Add new component with tests
• Performance optimizations
• More complex bug fixes

Large (L)

Characteristics:

• Major feature implementations
• Breaking changes or API redesigns
• Complex refactoring across multiple modules
• New architectural patterns or significant design changes
• Changes requiring deep context and multiple review rounds

Review Effort: Would have taken 45+ minutes

Examples:

• Complete new feature with frontend/backend changes
• Protocol upgrades or breaking changes
• Major architectural refactoring
• Framework or technology upgrades

Additional Factors to Consider

When deciding between sizes, also consider:

• Test coverage impact: More comprehensive test changes lean toward larger classification
• Risk level: Changes to critical systems bump up a size category
• Team familiarity: Novel patterns or technologies increase complexity

Notes:

• the assessment must be for the totality of the PR, that means comparing the base branch to the last commit of the PR
• the assessment output must be exactly one of: S, M or L (single-line comment) in format of: SIZE={S/M/L}
• do not include any additional text, only the size classification
• your assessment comment must not include tips or additional sections
• do NOT tag me or anyone else on your comment

[coderabbitai]

Tip

For best results, initiate chat on the files or code changes.

SIZE=S