chore(main): release 0.21.0

[dreulavelle]

🤖 I have created a release beep boop

0.21.0 (2024-12-06)

Features

• Add 6th retry attempt to symlinker (#926) (6d43d7f)

Bug Fixes

• add alldebrid as option in mediafusion (42829a2)
• add strong typed response to scrape api endpoint (44f047e)
• api manual scraping fixes. wip (7fb50f8)
• fixed alldebrid instantavail file processing (#916) (d2a6b5b)
• manual scraping updated for downloader rework (346b352)
• remove catalog configuration from Mediafusion settings and scraper (#919) (fc7ed05)
• update ListrrAPI validate method to use correct path (#906) (7659a37)
• updated sample handling for allowed video files (8a5e849)

---

This PR was generated with Release Please. See documentation.

Summary by CodeRabbit

• New Features
  • Introduced a sixth retry attempt for the symlinker, enhancing reliability.
• Bug Fixes
  • Integrated "alldebrid" as an option in Mediafusion.
  • Implemented a strongly typed response for the scrape API endpoint.
  • Resolved issues with manual scraping processes and processing of alldebrid instant availability files.
  • Updated the ListrrAPI validate method for correct path usage.
• Chores
  • Updated project version from 0.20.1 to 0.21.0 in the project configuration.

[coderabbitai]

Walkthrough

The pull request introduces a new version entry for 0.21.0 in the CHANGELOG.md file, documenting several enhancements and bug fixes, including the addition of a sixth retry attempt for the symlinker and the integration of "alldebrid" as an option in Mediafusion. The pyproject.toml file is updated to reflect the new project version of 0.21.0, with no changes to dependencies or other configurations.

Changes

File	Change Summary
CHANGELOG.md	Added version entry for 0.21.0, detailing several enhancements and bug fixes including updates to Mediafusion and the scrape API.
pyproject.toml	Updated project version from 0.20.1 to 0.21.0; no other changes made to dependencies.

Possibly related PRs

• chore(main): release 0.20.1 #900: The changes in this PR include updates to the CHANGELOG.md and pyproject.toml files, similar to the main PR, which also updates these files for version 0.21.0. Both PRs involve version increments and documentation of changes.

Suggested reviewers

• Gaisberg

🐰 In the changelog, a new entry hops,
For version 0.21.0, it never stops!
A fix for the validate, now it's right,
With each little change, our code takes flight!
So here’s to the updates, both big and small,
A rabbit's delight, let’s celebrate them all! 🥕✨

---

📜 Recent review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 37ab8b7 and 964a7f1.

📒 Files selected for processing (2)

• CHANGELOG.md (1 hunks)
• pyproject.toml (1 hunks)

🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (2)

• pyproject.toml
• CHANGELOG.md

---

Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media?

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

🪧 Tips

Chat

There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:

• Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by CodeRabbit. Example:
  • I pushed a fix in commit <commit_id>, please review it.
  • Generate unit testing code for this file.
  • Open a follow-up GitHub issue for this discussion.
• Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab): Tag @coderabbitai in a new review comment at the desired location with your query. Examples:
  • @coderabbitai generate unit testing code for this file.
  • @coderabbitai modularize this function.
• PR comments: Tag @coderabbitai in a new PR comment to ask questions about the PR branch. For the best results, please provide a very specific query, as very limited context is provided in this mode. Examples:
  • @coderabbitai gather interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table. Additionally, render a pie chart showing the language distribution in the codebase.
  • @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and generate unit testing code.
  • @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.
  • @coderabbitai help me debug CodeRabbit configuration file.

Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments.

CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)

• @coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
• @coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
• @coderabbitai review to trigger an incremental review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
• @coderabbitai full review to do a full review from scratch and review all the files again.
• @coderabbitai summary to regenerate the summary of the PR.
• @coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
• @coderabbitai configuration to show the current CodeRabbit configuration for the repository.
• @coderabbitai help to get help.

Other keywords and placeholders

• Add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.
• Add @coderabbitai summary to generate the high-level summary at a specific location in the PR description.
• Add @coderabbitai anywhere in the PR title to generate the title automatically.

CodeRabbit Configuration File (.coderabbit.yaml)

• You can programmatically configure CodeRabbit by adding a .coderabbit.yaml file to the root of your repository.
• Please see the configuration documentation for more information.
• If your editor has YAML language server enabled, you can add the path at the top of this file to enable auto-completion and validation: # yaml-language-server: $schema=https://coderabbit.ai/integrations/schema.v2.json

Documentation and Community

• Visit our Documentation for detailed information on how to use CodeRabbit.
• Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.
• Follow us on X/Twitter for updates and announcements.

[coderabbitai]

Actionable comments posted: 0

🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (1)

CHANGELOG.md (1)

4-5: Remove unnecessary empty lines.

There are two consecutive empty lines between the version header and the bug fixes section. One empty line is sufficient for readability.

## [0.20.2](https://github.com/rivenmedia/riven/compare/v0.20.1...v0.20.2) (2024-12-06)
-
-
### Bug Fixes

📜 Review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 1774043 and 9b5297b.

📒 Files selected for processing (2)

• CHANGELOG.md (1 hunks)
• pyproject.toml (1 hunks)

🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)

• pyproject.toml

🔇 Additional comments (1)

CHANGELOG.md (1)

3-14: LGTM! Version entry follows semantic versioning and changelog conventions.

The changes are well-documented with:

• Appropriate version number for bug fixes (patch version)
• Clear descriptions of changes
• Proper linking to commits and issues

[coderabbitai]

Actionable comments posted: 0

🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (2)

CHANGELOG.md (2)

6-8: Consider adding more context about the symlinker retry change.

While the feature is well documented with proper references, it would be helpful to include the rationale for adding a 6th retry attempt to the symlinker. This context would help users understand the impact and importance of this change.

---

11-19: Consider improving consistency and clarity of bug fix entries.

Some suggestions for improvement:

1. Add issue references for entries that don't have them (lines 13-15)
2. Make commit messages more descriptive:
   • "api manual scraping fixes. wip" could be more specific about what was fixed
   • "manual scraping updated for downloader rework" could explain the key changes

Consider applying this format to the entries:

-* api manual scraping fixes. wip ([7fb50f8](https://github.com/rivenmedia/riven/commit/7fb50f856d2395d2cbdc977a35e0a5ae152eecc0))
+* fix: improve API manual scraping by [specific changes] ([#issue](https://github.com/rivenmedia/riven/issues/issue)) ([7fb50f8](https://github.com/rivenmedia/riven/commit/7fb50f856d2395d2cbdc977a35e0a5ae152eecc0))

📜 Review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 9b5297b and 37ab8b7.

📒 Files selected for processing (2)

• CHANGELOG.md (1 hunks)
• pyproject.toml (1 hunks)

🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)

• pyproject.toml

🔇 Additional comments (1)

CHANGELOG.md (1)

3-5: LGTM! Version header follows the standard format.

The version header is properly formatted with the correct GitHub compare link and date.