Skip to content

chore(deps): update javascript#513

Open
renovate[bot] wants to merge 1 commit intomainfrom
renovate/js
Open

chore(deps): update javascript#513
renovate[bot] wants to merge 1 commit intomainfrom
renovate/js

Conversation

@renovate
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@renovate renovate bot commented Mar 27, 2026 •
edited
Loading

This PR contains the following updates:

Package Change Age Confidence
@tanstack/react-query (source) 5.95.2 → 5.97.0 age confidence
@types/node (source) 24.12.0 → 24.12.2 age confidence
eslint (source) 10.1.0 → 10.2.0 age confidence
lucide-react (source) 1.6.0 → 1.8.0 age confidence
postcss (source) 8.5.8 → 8.5.9 age confidence
react (source) 19.2.4 → 19.2.5 age confidence
react-dom (source) 19.2.4 → 19.2.5 age confidence
react-hook-form (source) 7.72.0 → 7.72.1 age confidence
react-resizable-panels (source) 4.7.5 → 4.9.0 age confidence
react-router-dom (source) 7.13.2 → 7.14.0 age confidence
recharts 3.8.0 → 3.8.1 age confidence
typescript-eslint (source) 8.57.2 → 8.58.1 age confidence
vite (source) 8.0.2 → 8.0.8 age confidence

Warning

Some dependencies could not be looked up. Check the Dependency Dashboard for more information.

Release Notes

TanStack/query (@​tanstack/react-query)

v5.97.0

Compare Source

Patch Changes

v5.96.2

Compare Source

Patch Changes

v5.96.1

Compare Source

Patch Changes

v5.96.0

Compare Source

Patch Changes
eslint/eslint (eslint)

v10.2.0

Compare Source

Features

Bug Fixes

Documentation

  • a2af743 docs: add language to configuration objects (#​20712) (Francesco Trotta)
  • 845f23f docs: Update README (GitHub Actions Bot)
  • 5fbcf59 docs: remove sourceType from ts playground link (#​20477) (Tanuj Kanti)
  • 8702a47 docs: Update README (GitHub Actions Bot)
  • ddeaded docs: Update README (GitHub Actions Bot)
  • 2b44966 docs: add Major Releases section to Manage Releases (#​20269) (Milos Djermanovic)
  • eab65c7 docs: update eslint versions in examples (#​20664) (루밀LuMir)
  • 3e4a299 docs: update ESM Dependencies policies with note for own-usage packages (#​20660) (Milos Djermanovic)

Chores

  • 8120e30 refactor: extract no unmodified loop condition (#​20679) (kuldeep kumar)
  • 46e8469 chore: update dependency markdownlint-cli2 to ^0.22.0 (#​20697) (renovate[bot])
  • 01ed3aa test: add unit tests for unicode utilities (#​20622) (Manish chaudhary)
  • 811f493 ci: remove --legacy-peer-deps from types integration tests (#​20667) (Milos Djermanovic)
  • 6b86fcf chore: update dependency npm-run-all2 to v8 (#​20663) (renovate[bot])
  • 632c4f8 chore: add prettier update commit to .git-blame-ignore-revs (#​20662) (루밀LuMir)
  • b0b0f21 chore: update dependency eslint-plugin-regexp to ^3.1.0 (#​20659) (Milos Djermanovic)
  • 228a2dd chore: update dependency eslint-plugin-eslint-plugin to ^7.3.2 (#​20661) (Milos Djermanovic)
  • 3ab4d7e test: Add tests for eslintrc-style keys (#​20645) (kuldeep kumar)
lucide-icons/lucide (lucide-react)

v1.8.0: Version 1.8.0

Compare Source

What's Changed

New Contributors

Full Changelog: lucide-icons/lucide@1.7.0...1.8.0

v1.7.0: Version 1.7.0

Compare Source

What's Changed

New Contributors

Full Changelog: lucide-icons/lucide@1.6.0...1.7.0

postcss/postcss (postcss)

v8.5.9

Compare Source

  • Speed up source map encoding paring in case of the error.
facebook/react (react)

v19.2.5: 19.2.5 (April 8th, 2026)

Compare Source

React Server Components
react-hook-form/react-hook-form (react-hook-form)

v7.72.1: Version 7.72.1

Compare Source

🐞 fix: add isDirty check for numeric string keys in defaultValues (issue #​13346) (#​13347)
🐞 fix: prevent setValue with shouldDirty from polluting unrelated dirty fields (#​13326)
🐞 fix: memoize control in HookFormControlContext to prevent render conflicts (#​13272) (#​13312)
🐞 fix: isNameInFieldArray should check all ancestor paths for nested field arrays (#​13318)
🐞 fix: #​13320 formState.isValid incorrect on Controller re-mount (#​13324)

thanks to @​6810779s, @​candymask0712, @​olagokemills, @​shahmir-oscilar & @​bae080311

bvaughn/react-resizable-panels (react-resizable-panels)

v4.9.0

Compare Source

  • 702: Add disableDoubleClick prop to Separator to enable turning off the double-click size reset behavior.

v4.8.0

Compare Source

  • 699: useDefaultLayout hook automatically migrates legacy layouts to version 4 format; see issue 605 for details on how this works.

v4.7.6

Compare Source

  • 698: Replace Panel aria-disabled attribute with data-disabled
remix-run/react-router (react-router-dom)

v7.14.0

Compare Source

Patch Changes
  • Updated dependencies:
    • react-router@7.14.0
recharts/recharts (recharts)

v3.8.1

Compare Source

What's Changed

Bugfixes!

New Contributors

Full Changelog: recharts/recharts@v3.8.0...v3.8.1

typescript-eslint/typescript-eslint (typescript-eslint)

v8.58.1

Compare Source

This was a version bump only for typescript-eslint to align it with other projects, there were no code changes.

See GitHub Releases for more information.

You can read about our versioning strategy and releases on our website.

v8.58.0

Compare Source

🚀 Features
❤️ Thank You

See GitHub Releases for more information.

You can read about our versioning strategy and releases on our website.

vitejs/vite (vite)

v8.0.8

Compare Source

Features
Bug Fixes

v8.0.7

Compare Source

Bug Fixes
  • use sync dns.getDefaultResultOrder instead of dns.promises (#​22185) (5c05b04)

v8.0.6

Compare Source

Features
Bug Fixes
Performance Improvements
  • early return in getLocalhostAddressIfDiffersFromDNS when DNS order is verbatim (#​22151) (56ec256)
Miscellaneous Chores

v8.0.5

Compare Source

Bug Fixes

v8.0.4

Compare Source

Features
Bug Fixes
Documentation
Miscellaneous Chores
Code Refactoring

v8.0.3

Compare Source

Features
Bug Fixes
  • html: cache unfiltered CSS list to prevent missing styles across entries (#​22017) (5464190)
  • module-runner: handle non-ascii characters in base64 sourcemaps (#​21985) (77c95bf)
  • module-runner: skip re-import if the runner is closed (#​22020) (ee2c2cd)
  • optimizer: scan is not resolving sub path import if used in a glob import (#​22018) (ddfe20d)
  • ssr: ssrTransform incorrectly rewrites meta identifier inside import.meta when a binding named meta exists (#​22019) (cff5f0c)
Miscellaneous Chores
Tests

Configuration

📅 Schedule: (in timezone Europe/London)

  • Branch creation
    • "before 10am on friday"
  • Automerge
    • At any time (no schedule defined)

🚦 Automerge: Enabled.

♻ Rebasing: Whenever PR becomes conflicted, or you tick the rebase/retry checkbox.

👻 Immortal: This PR will be recreated if closed unmerged. Get config help if that's undesired.

  • If you want to rebase/retry this PR, check this box

This PR was generated by Mend Renovate. View the repository job log.

@renovate renovate bot added dependencies Renovatebot and dependabot updates frontend javascript Pull requests that update javascript code labels Mar 27, 2026
@renovate renovate bot enabled auto-merge (squash) March 27, 2026 00:52
@renovate renovate bot added the frontend label Mar 27, 2026
@github-actions
Copy link
Copy Markdown

github-actions bot commented Mar 27, 2026 •
edited
Loading

Open in Overmind ↗

model|risks_v6
✨Encryption Key State Risk ✨KMS Key Creation

🔴 Change Signals

Routine 🔴 ▇▅▃▂▁ Multiple AWS compute and notification resources showing unusual infrequent updates at 1 event/week for the last 3 months, with other related resources at 2 events/week for the last 2-3 months, which is rare compared to typical patterns.
Policies 🔴 ▃▂▁ Multiple infrastructure resources showing unusual policy violations that may need review: an S3 bucket is repeatedly reported as missing required metadata and does not have server-side encryption configured, while a security group allows SSH (port 22) access from anywhere (0.0.0.0/0).

View signals ↗

🔥 Risks

Tip

✔ All risks disproven

We investigated 3 potential risks across 72 resources and verified each was safe. See the investigation details below.

🧠 Reasoning · ✔ 0 · ✖ 3

Direct public EC2 and Elastic IP exposure and connectivity risk

Observations 10

Hypothesis

Multiple EC2-related resources expose or modify direct Internet connectivity in ways that bypass recommended managed edge patterns and may impact both security and availability:

  • EC2 instance has a Security Group rule allowing SSH (port 22) from 0.0.0.0/0, classified as high severity (SEC06-BP03). Any update to this instance or its security group preserves a broad remote-access attack surface and could increase compromise risk.
  • Elastic IP 13.134.236.98 is associated with public EC2 instance i-0c326c28fef2cb7ee and ENI eni-0714cc06176804efa. Direct public exposure of EC2 instances without a Load Balancer or WAF conflicts with network-security guidance (Network Security – Public Endpoints, REL02-BP01/SEC05-BP03). Updates to this EIP (including re-association, release, or AllocationId changes) can remove or shift the public IP from associated ENIs, causing loss of external reachability for instances or NAT gateways, disrupting Internet egress for private subnets, or briefly exposing/altering public-facing endpoints.
    Overall risk: unmanaged changes to public IP association and permissive SSH access can lead to unintended public exposure, broken outbound connectivity, service unreachability, or routing of DNS to incorrect backends. Public-facing EC2 endpoints should be fronted by ALB/NLB/CloudFront and protected by WAF/Shield, with tightly scoped Security Groups. When updating EIPs, confirm association changes and coordinate maintenance windows where loss of reachability is acceptable.

Investigation

I treated the concern area as two related risks: unintended loss or shift of public connectivity caused by the Elastic IP change, and insecure public exposure caused by permissive SSH/public-instance patterns. I first checked the relevant organizational knowledge. That guidance does say direct public EC2 exposure is non-compliant and that an instance with both a public IP and open access is especially severe. I then inspected the actual planned diffs and current blast-radius state.

The change itself does not introduce a new public endpoint, broaden security-group access, or modify any SSH rule. The only visible EC2-instance diff on 540044833068.eu-west-2.ec2-instance.i-0726b58464882043a changes public_ip/public_dns to (known after apply), which is normal computed behavior during instance update and is not evidence that public reachability will be removed. The Elastic IP resource 540044833068.eu-west-2.ec2-address.13.134.236.98 similarly changes only its instance field to (known after apply). That EIP is currently attached to 540044833068.eu-west-2.ec2-instance.i-0c326c28fef2cb7ee via ENI eni-0714cc06176804efa, while the separately queried planned change shows a different instance, 540044833068.eu-west-2.ec2-instance.i-0e64cd613abc4bb19, being replaced and historically holding the same public IP. Taken together, this looks like Terraform state/association recomputation around an already-associated EIP, not a concrete reassociation to a different backend or a release of the address.

I also looked for evidence supporting the specific SSH-exposure claim. The blast-radius data I queried did not show any 0.0.0.0/0 rule on port 22 among the resources involved in the change; the only sampled public rules were HTTP/HTTPS-style rules. There may be existing public exposure elsewhere in the environment, and that would be a standing security finding, but this investigation is about whether this change creates a real risk in that concern area. I found no diff that changes security-group ingress, no evidence that the EIP is being detached from an existing endpoint without replacement, and no indication that NAT gateway EIPs or route tables are being modified. Because the hypothesis relies on generic public-exposure concerns and on interpreting (known after apply) as if it were a planned connectivity break, there is not strong evidence that this change will cause service unreachability, broken outbound connectivity, or new unintended exposure.

✖ Hypothesis disproven

Target group replacement causing transient or extended load balancer and backend unavailability

Observations 24

Hypothesis

Replacement or recreation of the ELBv2/NLB target group 'api-health-terraform-example' backing the internal/load-balanced services (including mon-internal-terraform-example) can cause transient or extended availability and security issues:

  • Target group replacement deregisters and re-registers backend targets such as EC2 API servers and instance i-0c326c28fef2cb7ee at 10.0.101.106:9090. This can cause transient health-check failures, temporary removal from ALB/NLB rotation, HTTP downtime, and request errors (5xx/503), potentially triggering autoscaling or failover behavior.
  • During or after replacement, the ALB/NLB may temporarily have no healthy or associated targets, impacting internal, cross-VPC, and potentially public-facing traffic routed via the ALB security group sg-0ac525af0d472d9bf and via peering/route tables. Clients relying on these paths can experience timeouts or errors.
  • Because backend Security Groups (e.g., sg-0b35287bf0a8a338c) include a broad egress rule (0.0.0.0/0) and database Security Group sg-0fe38b77fda090133 allows PostgreSQL from the API server SG, transient deregistration or isolation of API servers during replacement can combine with overly permissive egress to increase exposure if an instance is compromised, and can also disrupt application-to-database connectivity.
    Risk: Medium (REL02-BP01/REL02-BP03, REL10-BP01/BP03, SEC05-BP01/BP02). Poorly orchestrated target group replacement—without draining, staggered registration, health-check grace, multi-AZ targets, maintenance windows, and verification of listener and SG behavior—can disrupt backend/database availability and weaken network-segmentation posture.

Investigation

I investigated the concern area as potential availability loss from replacing the NLB target group 540044833068.eu-west-2.elbv2-target-group.api-health-terraform-example, and also checked the hypothesis’s related security-group/database angle. I first loaded the relevant organizational guidance for high availability, network security, security compliance, and local infrastructure notes. Those sources say to flag real risks when production traffic is forced through single-AZ or all-at-once changes, when ELB targets exist in only one AZ, or when security rules are weakened. They also note that some security groups are broadly permissive in this environment, but that only matters here if this change actually modifies them.

The planned changes show the target group is marked as replaced, but no target-group diff content is present, and there are no planned changes for the listener, listener rule, load balancer, or any of the referenced security groups. Current blast-radius state shows the NLB listener and default rule both forward to the existing target group ARN, the target group currently has one healthy IP target 10.0.101.106:9090, and the internal NLB spans two AZs. I also queried the other planned changes: they are mostly EC2 instances whose public IP/DNS values become (known after apply), plus one replaced instance with a new AMI. I did not find evidence that the listener is being left pointing at a deleted target group, that health-check settings are being worsened, or that security-group rules are changing. The hypothesis’s database-connectivity and segmentation concerns are about existing broad egress posture, not something introduced or weakened by this change.

There is some baseline fragility today because the target group currently has only one registered healthy backend, which is a medium reliability concern under our aws-high-availability guidance. But that is not evidence that this specific change will cause transient or extended unavailability. A target group replacement by itself does not prove downtime unless the plan shows an incompatible listener/rule transition, missing attachments, or other orchestration errors, and none of that appears in the available diffs. The lack of any listener/rule/security-group changes is evidence against the hypothesis’s claimed mechanism. So after active investigation, I found no strong evidence that this change will create the described outage or security failure mode.

✖ Hypothesis disproven

Instance update with no observable configuration changes

Observations 1

Hypothesis

An EC2 instance update operation is occurring on instance i-098b21ade87b5cbcf with no detected diff in compute configuration, AMI, Security Groups, networking, or IAM. While operationally this type of action may correspond to changes such as AMI or instance type updates, there is no explicit evidence of such modifications in the analyzed configuration. Per policy, in the absence of concrete change evidence, no specific new risk is attributed beyond existing controls and configurations already assessed.

Investigation

I treated the concern area as possible service disruption or exposure caused by an EC2 instance update that has no visible functional diff. I first checked relevant organizational knowledge for compute and availability guidance plus the infrastructure quick reference. None of those standards make an in-place instance refresh risky by itself; they mainly require concrete problems such as weak hardening, single-AZ deployment, or simultaneous fleet-wide rollout.

I then inspected the planned change and related current state. The only explicit diff on 540044833068.eu-west-2.ec2-instance.i-098b21ade87b5cbcf is that public_dns and public_ip change from concrete values to (known after apply). There is no diff for AMI, instance type, subnet, security group, IAM profile, private IP, root volume behavior, or target-group membership. The current blast-radius state shows the instance is running, healthy, attached to security group sg-0b35287bf0a8a338c, and registered healthy in ALB target group api-207c90ee-tg on port 80. That means the workload currently depends on the private interface and ALB registration rather than the computed public-IP fields.

I also checked AWS documentation on EC2 public IPv4 addressing. AWS documents that public IPv4/public DNS assignment is controlled by subnet/launch behavior and that public IPs from Amazon’s pool are provider-assigned values on the primary ENI, so Terraform commonly renders them as computed values when no explicit Elastic IP is being managed. Those (known after apply) values are not evidence of a functional network change by themselves. In this specific plan, there is also no associated subnet, ENI, or EIP change for this instance that would prove the public address will be removed or altered. The separate ec2-address.13.134.236.98 diff applies to a different instance, not i-098b21ade87b5cbcf.

Because the investigation found no concrete configuration change and no closely related mechanism that would break connectivity, replace the instance, or deregister it from the load balancer, the hypothesis does not describe a real risk. This looks like a no-op or provider-computed drift in output fields rather than an actionable infrastructure hazard.

✖ Hypothesis disproven

💥 Blast Radius

Items 72

Edges 213

github-actions[bot]
github-actions bot requested changes Mar 27, 2026
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Copy Markdown

@github-actions github-actions bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Overmind

⛔ Auto-Blocked

🔴 Decision

Auto-blocked: Routine score (-5) is below minimum (-1)

📊 Signals Summary

Routine 🔴 -5

🔥 Risks Summary

High 0 · Medium 0 · Low 0

💥 Blast Radius

Items 97 · Edges 246

View full analysis in Overmind ↗

github-actions[bot]
github-actions bot requested changes Mar 28, 2026
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Copy Markdown

@github-actions github-actions bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Overmind

⛔ Auto-Blocked

🔴 Decision

Auto-blocked: Policy signal (-3) is below threshold (-2); Routine score (-5) is below minimum (-1)

📊 Signals Summary

Routine 🔴 -5

Policies 🔴 -3

🔥 Risks Summary

High 0 · Medium 0 · Low 0

💥 Blast Radius

Items 27 · Edges 66

View full analysis in Overmind ↗

github-actions[bot]
github-actions bot requested changes Mar 30, 2026
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Copy Markdown

@github-actions github-actions bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Overmind

⛔ Auto-Blocked

🔴 Decision

Auto-blocked: Policy signal (-3) is below threshold (-2); Routine score (-5) is below minimum (-1)

📊 Signals Summary

Routine 🔴 -5

Policies 🔴 -3

🔥 Risks Summary

High 0 · Medium 0 · Low 0

💥 Blast Radius

Items 8 · Edges 30

View full analysis in Overmind ↗

github-actions[bot]
github-actions bot requested changes Mar 31, 2026
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Copy Markdown

@github-actions github-actions bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Overmind

⛔ Auto-Blocked

🔴 Decision

Found 2 high risks requiring review

📊 Signals Summary

Routine 🔴 -5

Policies 🔴 -3

🔥 Risks Summary

High 2 · Medium 0 · Low 0

💥 Blast Radius

Items 11 · Edges 25

View full analysis in Overmind ↗

github-actions[bot]
github-actions bot requested changes Apr 1, 2026
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Copy Markdown

@github-actions github-actions bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Overmind

⛔ Auto-Blocked

🔴 Decision

Auto-blocked: Policy signal (-3) is below threshold (-2); Routine score (-5) is below minimum (-1)

📊 Signals Summary

Routine 🔴 -5

Policies 🔴 -3

🔥 Risks Summary

High 0 · Medium 0 · Low 0

💥 Blast Radius

Items 8 · Edges 30

View full analysis in Overmind ↗

github-actions[bot]
github-actions bot requested changes Apr 2, 2026
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Copy Markdown

@github-actions github-actions bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Overmind

⛔ Auto-Blocked

🔴 Decision

Auto-blocked: Policy signal (-3) is below threshold (-2); Routine score (-5) is below minimum (-1)

📊 Signals Summary

Routine 🔴 -5

Policies 🔴 -3

🔥 Risks Summary

High 0 · Medium 0 · Low 0

💥 Blast Radius

Items 12 · Edges 38

View full analysis in Overmind ↗

github-actions[bot]
github-actions bot requested changes Apr 3, 2026
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Copy Markdown

@github-actions github-actions bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Overmind

⛔ Auto-Blocked

🔴 Decision

Auto-blocked: Policy signal (-3) is below threshold (-2); Routine score (-5) is below minimum (-1)

📊 Signals Summary

Routine 🔴 -5

Policies 🔴 -3

🔥 Risks Summary

High 0 · Medium 0 · Low 0

💥 Blast Radius

Items 4 · Edges 20

View full analysis in Overmind ↗

github-actions[bot]
github-actions bot requested changes Apr 3, 2026
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Copy Markdown

@github-actions github-actions bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Overmind

⛔ Auto-Blocked

🔴 Decision

Found 1 high risk requiring review

📊 Signals Summary

Routine 🔴 -5

Policies 🔴 -3

🔥 Risks Summary

High 1 · Medium 0 · Low 0

💥 Blast Radius

Items 2 · Edges 20

View full analysis in Overmind ↗

github-actions[bot]
github-actions bot requested changes Apr 3, 2026
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Copy Markdown

@github-actions github-actions bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Overmind

⛔ Auto-Blocked

🔴 Decision

Found 1 high risk requiring review

📊 Signals Summary

Routine 🔴 -5

Policies 🔴 -3

🔥 Risks Summary

High 1 · Medium 0 · Low 0

💥 Blast Radius

Items 16 · Edges 45

View full analysis in Overmind ↗

github-actions[bot]
github-actions bot requested changes Apr 6, 2026
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Copy Markdown

@github-actions github-actions bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Overmind

⛔ Auto-Blocked

🔴 Decision

Auto-blocked: Policy signal (-3) is below threshold (-2); Routine score (-5) is below minimum (-1)

📊 Signals Summary

Routine 🔴 -5

Policies 🔴 -3

🔥 Risks Summary

High 0 · Medium 0 · Low 0

💥 Blast Radius

Items 21 · Edges 63

View full analysis in Overmind ↗

github-actions[bot]
github-actions bot requested changes Apr 6, 2026
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Copy Markdown

@github-actions github-actions bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Overmind

⛔ Auto-Blocked

🔴 Decision

Auto-blocked: Policy signal (-3) is below threshold (-2); Routine score (-5) is below minimum (-1)

📊 Signals Summary

Routine 🔴 -5

Policies 🔴 -3

🔥 Risks Summary

High 0 · Medium 0 · Low 0

💥 Blast Radius

Items 49 · Edges 141

View full analysis in Overmind ↗

github-actions[bot]
github-actions bot requested changes Apr 7, 2026
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Copy Markdown

@github-actions github-actions bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Overmind

⛔ Auto-Blocked

🔴 Decision

Auto-blocked: Policy signal (-3) is below threshold (-2); Routine score (-5) is below minimum (-1)

📊 Signals Summary

Routine 🔴 -5

Policies 🔴 -3

🔥 Risks Summary

High 0 · Medium 0 · Low 0

💥 Blast Radius

Items 12 · Edges 43

View full analysis in Overmind ↗

github-actions[bot]
github-actions bot requested changes Apr 7, 2026
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Copy Markdown

@github-actions github-actions bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Overmind

⛔ Auto-Blocked

🔴 Decision

Found 3 high risks requiring review

📊 Signals Summary

Routine 🔴 -5

Policies 🔴 -3

🔥 Risks Summary

High 3 · Medium 0 · Low 0

💥 Blast Radius

Items 44 · Edges 77

View full analysis in Overmind ↗

github-actions[bot]
github-actions bot requested changes Apr 8, 2026
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Copy Markdown

@github-actions github-actions bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Overmind

⛔ Auto-Blocked

🔴 Decision

Found 1 high risk requiring review

📊 Signals Summary

Routine 🔴 -5

Policies 🔴 -3

🔥 Risks Summary

High 1 · Medium 0 · Low 0

💥 Blast Radius

Items 95 · Edges 233

View full analysis in Overmind ↗

github-actions[bot]
github-actions bot requested changes Apr 8, 2026
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Copy Markdown

@github-actions github-actions bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Overmind

⛔ Auto-Blocked

🔴 Decision

Auto-blocked: Policy signal (-3) is below threshold (-2); Routine score (-5) is below minimum (-1)

📊 Signals Summary

Routine 🔴 -5

Policies 🔴 -3

🔥 Risks Summary

High 0 · Medium 0 · Low 0

💥 Blast Radius

Items 60 · Edges 160

View full analysis in Overmind ↗

@renovate renovate bot force-pushed the renovate/js branch 2 times, most recently from 8ca3518 to ee8586b Compare April 9, 2026 06:55
github-actions[bot]
github-actions bot requested changes Apr 9, 2026
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Copy Markdown

@github-actions github-actions bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Overmind

⛔ Auto-Blocked

🔴 Decision

Found 1 high risk requiring review

📊 Signals Summary

Routine 🔴 -5

Policies 🔴 -3

🔥 Risks Summary

High 1 · Medium 0 · Low 0

💥 Blast Radius

Items 32 · Edges 114

View full analysis in Overmind ↗

github-actions[bot]
github-actions bot requested changes Apr 9, 2026
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Copy Markdown

@github-actions github-actions bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Overmind

⛔ Auto-Blocked

🔴 Decision

Auto-blocked: Policy signal (-3) is below threshold (-2); Routine score (-5) is below minimum (-1)

📊 Signals Summary

Routine 🔴 -5

Policies 🔴 -3

🔥 Risks Summary

High 0 · Medium 0 · Low 0

💥 Blast Radius

Items 72 · Edges 213

View full analysis in Overmind ↗

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

Reviewers

@github-actions github-actions[bot] github-actions[bot] requested changes

Requested changes must be addressed to merge this pull request.

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

dependencies Renovatebot and dependabot updates frontend javascript Pull requests that update javascript code

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

0 participants