eval: use crates.io rain-error-decoding 0.1.2 instead of git

[thedavidmeister]

rain-interpreter-eval is consumed downstream (raindex) as a git dependency. Pinning rain-error-decoding to a git rev meant those consumers pulled a parallel copy of the crate, distinct from the published crates.io 0.1.2 — so AbiDecodedErrorType failed to unify across the eval API boundary (raindex's ForkCallReverted couldn't accept eval's AbiDecodedError).

0.1.2 is the published equivalent of rev 3d2ed70, so this is behaviour-neutral. cargo check -p rainlang-eval passes against it. This lets crates.io consumers share a single rain-error-decoding.

Part of removing git deps from the raindex dependency graph (raindex#2593).

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

Summary by CodeRabbit

Release Notes

• Chores
  • Updated the rain-error-decoding dependency to version 0.1.2, replacing the previous Git-sourced version for improved stability and maintainability.

[coderabbitai]

Caution

Review failed

Pull request was closed or merged during review

📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

This PR migrates the workspace dependency rain-error-decoding from a Git-pinned revision to the published crates.io version 0.1.2. The change updates the dependency declaration in the workspace configuration.

Changes

Dependency Migration

Layer / File(s)	Summary
rain-error-decoding crate version update Cargo.toml	The rain-error-decoding workspace dependency is switched from a Git-sourced pinned revision to the published crates.io version 0.1.2.

Estimated code review effort

🎯 1 (Trivial) | ⏱️ ~3 minutes

Poem

🐰 A hop, skip, and a version bump so fine,
From Git's branched path to crates.io's line,
0.1.2 now published and true,
No more pinned commits—dependencies anew! 🌾

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 5

✅ Passed checks (5 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Description Check	✅ Passed	Check skipped - CodeRabbit’s high-level summary is enabled.
Title check	✅ Passed	The title directly and accurately describes the main change: migrating rain-error-decoding from a git-sourced dependency to crates.io version 0.1.2.
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.

_{✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings.}

✨ Finishing Touches

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests
• Commit unit tests in branch 2026-05-28-eval-crates-io-error-decoding

---

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