chore: bump ev-node in apps

[julienrbrt]

Overview

Follow-up of #3345

[coderabbitai]

Warning

Review limit reached

@julienrbrt, we couldn't start this review because you've reached your PR review rate limit.

More reviews will be available in 6 minutes and 8 seconds. Learn how PR review limits work.

Your organization has run out of usage credits. Purchase more in the billing tab.

⌛ How to resolve this issue?

After more reviews become available, a review can be triggered using the @coderabbitai review command as a PR comment. Alternatively, push new commits to this PR.

We recommend that you space out your commits to avoid hitting the rate limit.

🚦 How do rate limits work?

CodeRabbit enforces hourly rate limits for each developer per organization.

Our paid plans include higher PR review limits than trial, open-source, and free plans. In all cases, reviews become available again over time. During sustained high-volume PR review activity, CodeRabbit may temporarily slow when the next review becomes available.

Please see our Fair Usage Limits Policy for further information.

ℹ️ Review info

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: defaults

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

Run ID: 0559d628-14ec-40d5-a378-a317d95254e7

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between c3ed3a5 and bed0551.

⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (4)

• apps/evm/go.sum is excluded by !**/*.sum
• apps/grpc/go.sum is excluded by !**/*.sum
• apps/testapp/go.sum is excluded by !**/*.sum
• execution/evm/go.sum is excluded by !**/*.sum

📒 Files selected for processing (6)

• apps/evm/go.mod
• apps/grpc/go.mod
• apps/testapp/go.mod
• execution/evm/go.mod
• execution/evm/test/go.mod
• test/e2e/go.mod

✨ Finishing Touches

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests
• Commit unit tests in branch julien/prep-2

---

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.}

[claude]

Claude finished @julienrbrt's task in 1m 32s —— View job

---

PR Review: chore: bump ev-node in apps

• Gather context and read repo instructions
• Analyze the diff (go.mod / go.sum changes)
• Review for correctness and consistency
• Post findings

---

Summary

This PR bumps github.com/evstack/ev-node from v1.1.1 → v1.1.2 across all app modules, graduates execution/grpc from v1.0.0-rc.1 → v1.0.0 (stable), and comments out replace directives in the app go.mod files to switch from local source references to published registry versions. A broader set of indirect dependency updates accompanies these changes in execution/evm/go.mod.

The changes are mechanically correct and the go.sum hashes are consistent. A few observations:

---

Observations

1. Commented-out replace directives — unconventional style

apps/evm/go.mod, apps/grpc/go.mod, and apps/testapp/go.mod all comment out rather than remove their replace blocks:

// replace (
// 	github.com/evstack/ev-node => ../../
//  ...
// )

Go tooling ignores comments, so this is functionally correct — but it's non-standard. The convention is to simply delete replace directives when they are no longer needed. Commented-out directives create friction: a future contributor may not know whether to uncomment them for local dev, or whether they are safe to delete. If the intent is to make it easy to re-enable local development, a brief explanation comment would help. Consider removing them outright (they're in git history if needed), or add a comment explaining the intent.

2. test/e2e still uses active replace directives — intentional and correct

test/e2e/go.mod retains live replace directives pointing to local paths. This is the right approach: e2e tests must build against the local working tree. No action needed here.

3. test/e2e references a pseudo-version for execution/evm

github.com/evstack/ev-node/execution/evm v0.0.0-20250602130019-2a732cf903a5

This is overridden by the replace directive so it resolves to local code, but the declared version is a pseudo-version from June 2025. If the replace is ever removed (e.g., if execution/evm gets a proper tag), this version reference will be stale. It would be cleaner to bump this to a real tagged version when one exists, but it's not blocking.

4. Scope of indirect dependency bumps in execution/evm

The execution/evm/go.sum change is large (+70/-71 lines) with bumps to AWS SDK, Google Cloud libraries, libp2p (kad-dht v0.39.1→v0.40.0, pubsub v0.15.0→v0.16.0), IPFS (boxo v0.37→v0.39, go-cid v0.6.0→v0.6.1), OpenTelemetry, and others. These are routine but broader than the stated PR scope ("bump ev-node in apps"). Worth confirming these transitive updates were intentional (i.e., the result of running go mod tidy after the version bump) and that they don't introduce regressions in execution/evm.

5. execution/grpc v1.0.0 stable release — no code review needed here

The rc.1 → v1.0.0 graduation in apps/grpc/go.mod is a version declaration change only; no code is modified in this repo. LGTM.

---

Verdict

No blocking issues. The PR is functionally correct. The main suggestion is to remove the commented-out replace directives rather than leaving them as dead comments, and to verify the transitive dependency bumps in execution/evm were intentional.

[github-actions]

The latest Buf updates on your PR. Results from workflow CI / buf-check (pull_request).

Build	Format	Lint	Breaking	Updated (UTC)
✅ passed	⏩ skipped	✅ passed	✅ passed	Jun 8, 2026, 3:31 PM

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 60.70%. Comparing base (c3ed3a5) to head (bed0551).

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #3346   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   60.70%   60.70%           
=======================================
  Files         127      127           
  Lines       13781    13781           
=======================================
  Hits         8366     8366           
  Misses       4502     4502           
  Partials      913      913           

Flag	Coverage Δ
combined	60.70% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness.
📢 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.