fix(autopublish): send crates.io User-Agent (workaround for change-detection churn)

[thedavidmeister]

crates.io 403s default curl User-Agents, so the change-detection gate's version lookup silently fell back to OLD_VERSION=none → OLD=none → changed=true on every run. That's why rain-metadata-bindings churned 0.1.0 → 0.1.4 with byte-identical content (the metaboard job's log showed the literal curl: (22) 403).

Fix: send a descriptive User-Agent, distinguish a real 404 (never published) from other HTTP errors (fail loudly instead of assuming none), and echo resolved values to the log.

Important: this is a workaround, not the full fix

It makes unchanged crates correctly no-op. It does not fix the deeper issue: when 2+ genuinely-changed interdependent crates publish via chained jobs, each cargo release rewrites the shared dependent manifest (crates/cli/Cargo.toml pins both bindings and metaboard versions), so rebasing one bump onto the other conflicts there — the Cargo.lock-only fallback from #184 can't resolve it. Proper fix = single combined release job per repo. Filing separately.

Pairs with #184/#186.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

[coderabbitai]

Warning

Review limit reached

@thedavidmeister, we couldn't start this review because you've reached your PR review rate limit.

More reviews will be available in 11 minutes and 36 seconds. Learn how PR review limits work.

Your organization has run out of usage credits. Purchase more in the billing tab.

⌛ How to resolve this issue?

After more reviews become available, 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 include higher PR review limits than trial, open-source, and free plans. In all cases, reviews become available again over time. During sustained high-volume PR review activity, CodeRabbit may temporarily slow when the next review becomes available.

Please see our Fair Usage Limits Policy for further information.

ℹ️ Review info

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

Run ID: 4c2921b1-6f9c-4077-90a0-e2d1fed8782b

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 0aa21cd and bf9816b.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• .github/workflows/rainix-autopublish.yaml

✨ Finishing Touches

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests
• Commit unit tests in branch 2026-05-26-autopublish-crates-ua

---

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.}

[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