Skip to content

MT-23076: mention #149 in the 4.10.0 changelog - #156

Open
oshchyhol wants to merge 1 commit into
mainfrom
MT-23076-mention-149-in-changelog
Open

MT-23076: mention #149 in the 4.10.0 changelog#156
oshchyhol wants to merge 1 commit into
mainfrom
MT-23076-mention-149-in-changelog

Conversation

@oshchyhol

@oshchyhol oshchyhol commented Aug 31, 2026 •
edited by coderabbitai Bot
Loading

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Motivation

PR #149 shipped in v4.10.0 (the release tag landed on its merge commit), but the release PR #155 was drafted before it merged, so CHANGELOG.md omits it. The PR #155 description and the v4.10.0 GitHub release notes were already updated; this syncs the file.

Changes

How to test

  • N/A – changelog-only change, no code affected

Images and GIFs

N/A

Summary by CodeRabbit

  • New Features
    • Added support for setting an expiration date when creating or resetting API tokens.

@coderabbitai

coderabbitai Bot commented Aug 31, 2026 •
edited
Loading

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Review Change Stack

No actionable comments were generated in the recent review. 🎉

ℹ️ Recent review info
⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Organization UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Team

Run ID: 764a692c-f927-4b31-ace6-6c51881546c4

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 17e7f99 and 0698d10.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)
  • CHANGELOG.md

Included review availability: Your plan provides up to 2 included reviews per hour; 1 remains after this review.

📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

The 4.10.0 changelog now lists PR #149 and its support for the expires_at parameter on API token create and reset operations.

Changes

API token expiration

Layer / File(s) Summary
Release changelog entry
CHANGELOG.md		 The 4.10.0 release notes document expires_at support for API token create and reset operations.

Estimated code review effort: 1 (Trivial) | ~2 minutes

Merge Risk: ⚪ Minimal · up to 0698d

This PR only adds the missing v4.10.0 changelog entry and does not affect product behavior; no actionable merge-blocking risk remains after normal checks and review.

Suggested reviewers: igordobryn

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 5
✅ Passed checks (5 passed)
Check name Status Explanation
Title check ✅ Passed The title clearly and concisely describes the changelog-only change. It identifies the related issue and the 4.10.0 changelog.
Description check ✅ Passed The description includes all required sections. It explains the motivation, lists the change, documents that no code testing is needed, and marks images as not applicable.
Docstring Coverage ✅ Passed No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check. Docstring coverage is scoped to functions touched by this diff. Analyzed 0 functions across 0…
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.
Full details: Docstring Coverage

Explanation

No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check. Docstring coverage is scoped to functions touched by this diff. Analyzed 0 functions across 0 files. (1 skipped: 1 unsupported.)

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.

@oshchyhol
oshchyhol marked this pull request as ready for review August 31, 2026 20:45
@oshchyhol
oshchyhol requested a review from mklocek August 31, 2026 20:45
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@mklocek mklocek mklocek approved these changes

At least 2 approving reviews are required to merge this pull request.

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants

@oshchyhol @mklocek