fix: remove unused setuptools dependency from pyproject.toml

[shenxianpeng]

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Chores
  • Removed version constraint from setuptools dependency in project configuration.

[coderabbitai]

No actionable comments were generated in the recent review. 🎉

ℹ️ Recent review info

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Organization UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

Run ID: 2b6605cc-1a2f-4d6d-8d87-7ff8433a1693

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between d083c25 and 21f6e15.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• pyproject.toml

💤 Files with no reviewable changes (1)

• pyproject.toml

---

Walkthrough

Removed the "setuptools>=45.0.0" dependency constraint from the project dependencies in pyproject.toml. No other build system configuration or remaining dependencies were altered.

Changes

Cohort / File(s)	Summary
Dependency Constraint Removal pyproject.toml	Removed setuptools minimum version constraint from [project.dependencies].

Estimated code review effort

🎯 1 (Trivial) | ⏱️ ~2 minutes

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 3

✅ Passed checks (3 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Description Check	✅ Passed	Check skipped - CodeRabbit’s high-level summary is enabled.
Title check	✅ Passed	The title accurately describes the main change: removing an unused setuptools dependency from pyproject.toml, which directly matches the changeset.
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check.

_{✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings.}

✨ Finishing Touches

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests
• Commit unit tests in branch fix/remove-unused-deps

📝 Coding Plan

• Generate coding plan for human review comments

---

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.}

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 95.41%. Comparing base (d083c25) to head (21f6e15).
⚠️ Report is 2 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main     #188   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   95.41%   95.41%           
=======================================
  Files           4        4           
  Lines         109      109           
=======================================
  Hits          104      104           
  Misses          5        5           

☔ 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.

[shenxianpeng]

npm warn exec The following package was not found and will be installed: cspell-cli@9.7.0
1/1  730.21ms X
:1:20 - Unknown word (setuptools)
:1:47 - Unknown word (pyproject)
CSpell: Files checked: 1, Issues found: 2 in 1 file.
Error: Process completed with exit code 1.

It's a weird to see a failed. but actually, the unknown words in the cspell.config.yml.

https://github.com/cpp-linter/cpp-linter-hooks/actions/runs/23263124309/job/67637095130

Any throughs? @2bndy5

[codspeed-hq]

Merging this PR will improve performance by 40.31%

⚡ 4 improved benchmarks
✅ 56 untouched benchmarks
⏩ 16 skipped benchmarks¹

Performance Changes

	Benchmark	BASE	HEAD	Efficiency
⚡	test_run_clang_tidy_valid[args4-1]	1,069.8 µs	888.2 µs	+20.44%
⚡	test_resolve_install_tool_already_installed_correct_version	927.2 µs	815 µs	+13.76%
⚡	test_resolve_install_tool_version_mismatch	1,267.5 µs	903.3 µs	+40.31%
⚡	test_run_clang_tidy_invalid[args4-1]	1,020.9 µs	845.9 µs	+20.69%

---

_{Comparing fix/remove-unused-deps (21f6e15) with main (8b18318)²}

Footnotes

1. 16 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. ↩

2. No successful run was found on main (d083c25) during the generation of this report, so 8b18318 was used instead as the comparison base. There might be some changes unrelated to this pull request in this report. ↩

[sonarqubecloud]

Quality Gate passed

Issues
0 New issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
0.0% Coverage on New Code
0.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarQube Cloud