fix(rivetkit): commit missing generated inspector v5 bare codec

[jog1t]

No description provided.

[jog1t]

Stack for rivet-dev/rivet

• fix(rivetkit): commit missing generated inspector v5 bare codec #5376 qsunwlqt · 2026-07-03 23:57:38 👈
• main

Get stack: forklift get 5376
Push local edits: forklift submit
Merge when ready: forklift merge 5376

[claude]

Review

This PR adds the missing generated v5.ts BARE codec file for the inspector protocol under rivetkit-typescript/packages/rivetkit/src/common/bare/generated/inspector/.

Verification performed:

• Confirmed v5.ts is already imported by src/inspector/client.browser.ts and src/inspector/mod.ts — without this file, those imports would be broken/unresolvable, so this looks like a real build-breaking omission from a prior commit rather than a stray addition.
• Compared the generated output against rivetkit-rust/packages/inspector-protocol/schemas/v5.bare: every type (State, WorkflowHistory, all *Request/*Response structs, ToServerBody/ToClientBody unions, Init, etc.) and field ordering matches the schema exactly, including tag ordering in the unions.
• Structurally consistent with the codegen pattern used in the sibling v1.ts–v4.ts files (same helper-numbering scheme for anonymous optional/list readers/writers, same @generated header, same assert helper at the bottom).
• The file is not covered by any .gitignore rule, so this is straightforwardly "forgot to git add the generated artifact," consistent with the commit message.

Feedback:

• No correctness issues found — this is a pure, mechanically-generated additive file that restores parity with its schema source.
• Since this class of bug (generated artifact silently missing from a commit) has apparently happened before (this is v5, and v1–v4 are already present), it might be worth a CI check that regenerates the bare codecs and diffs against what's committed, to catch this earlier next time. Not a blocker for this fix.
• Test coverage: not applicable here since this is a generated artifact; the existing test suite exercising the inspector protocol should already cover this once the file is present.

Overall this is a safe, correct, minimal fix. LGTM.