eval: bump wasm-bindgen-utils to 0.1.2

[thedavidmeister]

wasm-bindgen-utils 0.0.10 doesn't compile against wasm-bindgen 0.2.122, which the rest of the Rain ecosystem (rain-math-float, rain-metadata) pulls in via wasm-bindgen-utils 0.1.2. A consumer like raindex that depends on both rainlang-eval and those crates ends up with two incompatible wasm-bindgen-utils versions and can't build for wasm.

Aligning rainlang-eval on wasm-bindgen-utils 0.1.2 (and bumping wasm-bindgen 0.2.100 → 0.2.122 / js-sys → 0.3.99 to match) fixes the wasm build. Native + wasm workspace both compile (cli excluded from wasm as usual).

Republishes rainlang-eval, the last piece for raindex's wasm build on crates.io.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Chores
  • Updated underlying dependencies to the latest compatible versions for improved stability and performance.

[coderabbitai]

No actionable comments were generated in the recent review. 🎉

ℹ️ Recent review info

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

Run ID: 7e8162f1-088f-46a6-bce3-1e8a98cd09e7

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between ca6a013 and acccb53.

⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (1)

• Cargo.lock is excluded by !**/*.lock

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• Cargo.toml

---

📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

This PR updates the workspace dependency wasm-bindgen-utils from version 0.0.10 to 0.1.2 in Cargo.toml. It is a straightforward version bump of a single transitive dependency.

Changes

Workspace Dependency Update

Layer / File(s)	Summary
wasm-bindgen-utils version upgrade Cargo.toml	The wasm-bindgen-utils workspace dependency version is bumped from 0.0.10 to 0.1.2.

Estimated code review effort

🎯 1 (Trivial) | ⏱️ ~2 minutes

Possibly related issues

• Bump wasm-bindgen-utils to 0.1.2 in rainlang-eval (remove the duplicate 0.0.x utils in downstream locks) #520: Shares the same workspace dependency version bump for wasm-bindgen-utils from 0.0.x to 0.1.2.

Poem

🐰 A version hop, so small and neat,
wasm-bindgen-utils got its treat,
From point-oh-ten to point-one-two,
Dependencies dance in workspace stew! 🚀

🚥 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 'eval: bump wasm-bindgen-utils to 0.1.2' directly and specifically describes the main change in the PR: updating a dependency version in the eval workspace.
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-wasm-bindgen-utils-0.1

---

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.}

[coderabbitai]

Actionable comments posted: 0

[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