fix: derive Error for JSONError

[Boshen]

No description provided.

[Boshen]

• fix: derive Error for JSONError #779 👈 (View in Graphite)
• main

---

How to use the Graphite Merge Queue

Add the label merge to this PR to add it to the merge queue.

You must have a Graphite account in order to use the merge queue. Sign up using this link.

An organization admin has enabled the Graphite Merge Queue in this repository.

Please do not merge from GitHub as this will restart CI on PRs being processed by the merge queue.

This stack of pull requests is managed by Graphite. Learn more about stacking.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 93.85%. Comparing base (5e2e66a) to head (f8886f4).
⚠️ Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main     #779   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   93.85%   93.85%           
=======================================
  Files          17       17           
  Lines        3077     3077           
=======================================
  Hits         2888     2888           
  Misses        189      189           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[graphite-app]

Merge activity

• Oct 21, 11:41 AM UTC: Boshen added this pull request to the Graphite merge queue.
• Oct 21, 11:44 AM UTC: Merged by the Graphite merge queue.

[codspeed-hq]

CodSpeed Performance Report

Merging #779 will not alter performance

_{Comparing 10-21-fix_derive_thiserror_for_jsonerror (f8886f4) with main (5e2e66a)¹}

Summary

✅ 10 untouched
⏩ 5 skipped²

Footnotes

1. No successful run was found on main (f8886f4) during the generation of this report, so 5e2e66a was used instead as the comparison base. There might be some changes unrelated to this pull request in this report. ↩

2. 5 benchmarks were skipped, so the baseline results were used instead. If they were deleted from the codebase, click here and archive them to remove them from the performance reports. ↩