Skip to content

Conversation

shitrerohit
Copy link
Contributor

@shitrerohit shitrerohit commented Sep 19, 2025

What?

Updated the package.json file with correct details

Summary by CodeRabbit

  • Documentation

    • Updated licensing information to Apache-2.0, clarifying usage and distribution terms for the project.
  • Chores

    • Bumped application version to 2.1.0 to reflect the latest release.
    • Refreshed author metadata to identify the current maintainer.

Copy link

coderabbitai bot commented Sep 19, 2025

Walkthrough

Updated package metadata in package.json: version set to 2.1.0, author set to "LFDT", and license changed to "Apache-2.0". No changes to scripts, dependencies, or other configuration.

Changes

Cohort / File(s) Summary
Package metadata
`package.json`
Update version 2.0.0 → 2.1.0; set author to "LFDT"; change license MIT → Apache-2.0

Estimated code review effort

🎯 1 (Trivial) | ⏱️ ~2 minutes

Poem

I twitch my nose at version two-point-one,
New license moon, author in the sun.
In fields of JSON, carrots align,
Metadata crisp, permissions fine.
(_/)\n> ( •_•) — hop! tag and run.

Pre-merge checks and finishing touches

✅ Passed checks (3 passed)
Check name Status Explanation
Description Check ✅ Passed Check skipped - CodeRabbit’s high-level summary is enabled.
Title Check ✅ Passed The PR title "fix:updated the package.json file" correctly identifies the primary change—an update to package.json (version, author, license)—and is concise enough for a reviewer to understand the main intent. It directly relates to the changeset and therefore satisfies the requirement to summarize the main change. The title has minor stylistic issues (missing space after the colon and an arguable choice of the "fix" prefix for a metadata change) but remains clear and not misleading.
Docstring Coverage ✅ Passed No functions found in the changes. Docstring coverage check skipped.
✨ Finishing touches
🧪 Generate unit tests
  • Create PR with unit tests
  • Post copyable unit tests in a comment
  • Commit unit tests in branch fix/update-package-json-file

Tip

👮 Agentic pre-merge checks are now available in preview!

Pro plan users can now enable pre-merge checks in their settings to enforce checklists before merging PRs.

  • Built-in checks – Quickly apply ready-made checks to enforce title conventions, require pull request descriptions that follow templates, validate linked issues for compliance, and more.
  • Custom agentic checks – Define your own rules using CodeRabbit’s advanced agentic capabilities to enforce organization-specific policies and workflows. For example, you can instruct CodeRabbit’s agent to verify that API documentation is updated whenever API schema files are modified in a PR. Note: Upto 5 custom checks are currently allowed during the preview period. Pricing for this feature will be announced in a few weeks.

Please see the documentation for more information.

Example:

reviews:
  pre_merge_checks:
    custom_checks:
      - name: "Undocumented Breaking Changes"
        mode: "warning"
        instructions: |
          Pass/fail criteria: All breaking changes to public APIs, CLI flags, environment variables, configuration keys, database schemas, or HTTP/GraphQL endpoints must be documented in the "Breaking Change" section of the PR description and in CHANGELOG.md. Exclude purely internal or private changes (e.g., code not exported from package entry points or explicitly marked as internal).

Please share your feedback with us on this Discord post.


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

Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.

Copy link

Copy link

@coderabbitai coderabbitai bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Actionable comments posted: 1

🧹 Nitpick comments (2)
package.json (2)

5-5: Prefer structured author/maintainers metadata.

Use an object and/or add a maintainers/contributors list for org ownership clarity.

Apply if desired:

-  "author": "LFDT",
+  "author": { "name": "LFDT" },
+  "maintainers": [
+    { "name": "LFDT Team", "email": "<[email protected]>" }
+  ],

1-7: Avoid accidental npm publish if this is not a public package.

If this repo isn’t meant to be published, mark it private.

 {
   "name": "api-gateway",
+  "private": true,
   "version": "2.1.0",
📜 Review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 7adb412 and 6a214b8.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)
  • package.json (1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (1)
package.json (1)

3-3: Version bump looks fine; ensure release hygiene (tag + changelog).

If this drives publishing/CI, add a CHANGELOG entry for 2.1.0 and create/rely on a v2.1.0 tag so downstream artifacts remain traceable.

"author": "",
"license": "MIT",
"author": "LFDT",
"license": "Apache-2.0",
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

⚠️ Potential issue

🧩 Analysis chain

License switch to Apache-2.0 requires repo-wide compliance updates.

Confirm legal sign‑off, update LICENSE to Apache‑2.0, add/refresh NOTICE, and scrub MIT mentions (README badges, headers). Check other packages in the repo aren’t still declaring MIT.

Run to verify:


🏁 Script executed:

#!/bin/bash
set -euo pipefail

echo "1) LICENSE presence and content"
test -f LICENSE && rg -n "Apache License, Version 2\.0" LICENSE || echo "LICENSE missing or not Apache-2.0"

echo -e "\n2) NOTICE presence (Apache recommends)"
test -f NOTICE || echo "NOTICE missing"

echo -e "\n3) Residual MIT references (excluding build artifacts)"
rg -nI -S '\bMIT\b' -g '!**/node_modules/**' -g '!**/dist/**' -g '!**/build/**' || true

echo -e "\n4) package.json files still declaring MIT"
fd -t f package.json | xargs -I{} rg -n '"license"\s*:\s*"MIT"' {} || true

Length of output: 405


🏁 Script executed:

#!/bin/bash
set -euo pipefail

echo "1) LICENSE presence and content"
if [ -f LICENSE ]; then
  rg -n "Apache License, Version 2.0" LICENSE || grep -n "Apache License, Version 2.0" LICENSE || echo "LICENSE present but Apache-2.0 string not found"
else
  echo "LICENSE missing"
fi

echo -e "\n2) NOTICE presence (Apache recommends)"
test -f NOTICE || echo "NOTICE missing"

echo -e "\n3) Residual MIT references (fallback to grep, excluding common build dirs)"
grep -RIn --binary-files=without-match --exclude-dir=node_modules --exclude-dir=dist --exclude-dir=build --exclude-dir=.git -E '\bMIT\b' . || echo "no MIT matches found"

echo -e "\n4) package.json files still declaring MIT"
find . -type f -name package.json -not -path "./node_modules/*" -not -path "./dist/*" -not -path "./build/*" -print0 | \
  while IFS= read -r -d '' file; do
    printf "\n== %s ==\n" "$file"
    grep -nE '"license"[[:space:]]*:[[:space:]]*"MIT"' "$file" || true
  done

Length of output: 384


Add NOTICE and obtain legal sign‑off — LICENSE already Apache‑2.0

  • LICENSE verified to contain "Apache License, Version 2.0" (found in LICENSE).
  • NOTICE file missing — add a root NOTICE with required attributions.
  • No residual "MIT" occurrences found; checked package.json files: ./package.json, ./libs/aws/package.json, ./libs/common/package.json (none declare MIT).
  • Obtain and record legal sign‑off (corporate approval / CLA/DCO) before merging.
🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
In package.json around line 6, the project already uses "Apache-2.0" but is
missing the required root NOTICE file and needs legal sign‑off; add a NOTICE
file at the repository root containing the required Apache 2.0 attribution
statements and any third‑party notices used by the project, ensure the
package.json license fields remain "Apache-2.0" (and update any other metadata
if necessary), and obtain and record corporate legal approval (CLA/DCO or
equivalent) before merging.

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