[cachekit-renovate-bot]

This PR contains the following updates:

Package	Type	Update	Change
cachekit-rs (source)	dependencies	minor	0.11.1 → 0.12.0

---

Release Notes

cachekit-io/cachekit-rs (cachekit-rs)

v0.12.0: cachekit-rs: v0.12.0

Compare Source

⚠ BREAKING CHANGES

• encryption: CacheKit::from_env() no longer encrypts because CACHEKIT_MASTER_KEY is set. While the variable is set, a from_env() builder fails at build() with CachekitError::Config until you chain .encryption_from_env() (encrypt with the same keys and tenant as before, so existing entries stay readable) or .no_encryption() (a plaintext client: delete the old encrypted entries first, because a client that does not encrypt cannot read them and a #[cachekit] function overwrites them in plaintext). A build without the encryption feature now raises that error at build(), not at from_env(), and accepts .no_encryption().
• config: from_env ignores CACHEKIT_DEFAULT_TTL; pass a TTL per call or chain .default_ttl() (LAB-4664) (#​172)

Features

• encryption: from_env() no longer encrypts because CACHEKIT_MASTER_KEY is set (LAB-4669) (#​173) (63a5399)

Bug Fixes

• config: from_env ignores CACHEKIT_DEFAULT_TTL; pass a TTL per call or chain .default_ttl() (LAB-4664) (#​172) (dcae57c)
• readme: replace the unmeasured latency figures with measured ones (LAB-10638) (#​171) (d9d6394)

Performance Improvements

• client: borrow the key and check it 16 bytes at a time (LAB-10665) (#​178) (af59b91)

Dependencies

• The following workspace dependencies were updated
  • dependencies
    • cachekit-macros bumped from 0.11.1 to 0.12.0

---

Configuration

📅 Schedule: (in timezone Australia/Sydney)

• Branch creation
  • At any time (no schedule defined)
• Automerge
  • At any time (no schedule defined)

🚦 Automerge: Disabled by config. Please merge this manually once you are satisfied.

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

🔕 Ignore: Close this PR and you won't be reminded about this update again.

---

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

---

This PR has been generated by Mend Renovate.

[kodus-27b]

Code Review Completed! 🔥

The code review was successfully completed based on your current configurations.

Kody Guide: Usage and Configuration

Interacting with Kody

• Request a Review: Ask Kody to review your PR manually by adding a comment with the `@kody start-review` command at the root of your PR.

• Provide Feedback: Help Kody learn and improve by reacting to its comments with a 👍 for helpful suggestions or a 👎 if improvements are needed.

Providing Context (Files & MCPs)

Add these hints in your PR description (or a comment) to unlock deeper checks:

• Ticket / Acceptance Criteria: `Refs: ABC-123` (Linear/Jira/Asana/ClickUp/Trello) or a direct ticket link.
• Bugfix Validation: a Sentry/Datadog/Bugsnag event link (or paste the stack trace/error message).
• Endpoint Risk: mention the route (e.g., `POST /api/payments`) or controller/action name.
• Attach a repo file as context: use an explicit marker like `@file:docs/guide.mdx#L10-L50` (replace with your real path).
• API Contract Docs: include `@file:openapi.yaml` or `@file:swagger.json` when changing routes/schemas.
• Definition of Done / Standards: include `@file:DOD.md` or `@file:CONTRIBUTING.md` if your repo has them.
• Design System Source of Truth: include `@file:ui/index.ts` (replace with your DS entrypoint path).
• Feature Flags: include the flag key/name and `@file:flags.ts` / `@file:config.json` (and optionally the PostHog flag name).
• Edge/CDN Rules: link the Cloudflare rule/zone or describe the intended redirect/header behavior.
• Attach an MCP tool output: use `@mcp<provider|tool>` (replace with an installed MCP provider + tool, e.g., `@mcp<sentry|events.search>`).

Current Kody Configuration

Review Options

The following review options are enabled or disabled:

Options	Enabled
Bug	✅
Performance	✅
Security	✅
Business Logic	✅

Access your configuration settings here.

Kody Code Review — 1 suggested fix.
Paste the prompt below to your agent and all review fixed at once!

🛠️ Open Agent Prompt

A code review identified the following issues in this pull request.
Each section describes what was found and includes a reference implementation where available.

Files involved:
- Cargo.toml:32

---

### [1/1] Cargo.toml:32
Issue identified during code review:
WHAT: cachekit-rs moves from 0.11.1 to 0.12.0. Under 0.x semver, a minor bump can contain breaking changes. WHY: Dependency upgrades need supply-chain and CVE validation. This crate is used with the encryption and file features, so it is security-sensitive. HOW: Run `cargo audit` (or an OSV/SCA scan) on the new version and attach the output or advisory links to the PR description. Review the changelog for breaking changes. Commit the updated Cargo.lock in the same PR.

---

Review each issue in context, use the reference implementations as guidance, and apply fixes that are consistent with the surrounding codebase.

[kodus-27b]

WHAT: cachekit-rs moves from 0.11.1 to 0.12.0. Under 0.x semver, a minor bump can contain breaking changes. WHY: Dependency upgrades need supply-chain and CVE validation. This crate is used with the encryption and file features, so it is security-sensitive. HOW: Run cargo audit (or an OSV/SCA scan) on the new version and attach the output or advisory links to the PR description. Review the changelog for breaking changes. Commit the updated Cargo.lock in the same PR.

Kody rule violation: Validate new/updated dependencies for CVEs and supply-chain risk

Prompt for LLM

File Cargo.toml:

Line 32:

WHAT: cachekit-rs moves from 0.11.1 to 0.12.0. Under 0.x semver, a minor bump can contain breaking changes. WHY: Dependency upgrades need supply-chain and CVE validation. This crate is used with the encryption and file features, so it is security-sensitive. HOW: Run `cargo audit` (or an OSV/SCA scan) on the new version and attach the output or advisory links to the PR description. Review the changelog for breaking changes. Commit the updated Cargo.lock in the same PR.

_{Talk to Kody by mentioning @kody}

_{Was this suggestion helpful? React with 👍 or 👎 to help Kody learn from this interaction.}

​

​