Bump librt from 0.9.0 to 0.10.0

[dependabot]

Bumps librt from 0.9.0 to 0.10.0.

Commits

• 1d5e9b2 Bump version to 0.10.0
• 963673e Sync mypy and add smoke tests (#38)
• See full diff in compare view

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 98.92%. Comparing base (0c919f4) to head (395ab07).
⚠️ Report is 3 commits behind head on master.
✅ All tests successful. No failed tests found.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master   #12471   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   98.92%   98.92%           
=======================================
  Files         134      134           
  Lines       46750    46750           
  Branches     2429     2429           
=======================================
  Hits        46248    46248           
  Misses        373      373           
  Partials      129      129           

Flag	Coverage Δ
CI-GHA	98.98% <ø> (ø)
OS-Linux	98.72% <ø> (ø)
OS-Windows	96.98% <ø> (ø)
OS-macOS	97.89% <ø> (-0.01%)	⬇️
Py-3.10.11	97.39% <ø> (-0.01%)	⬇️
Py-3.10.20	97.86% <ø> (ø)
Py-3.11.15	98.10% <ø> (-0.02%)	⬇️
Py-3.11.9	97.65% <ø> (+<0.01%)	⬆️
Py-3.12.10	97.73% <ø> (ø)
Py-3.12.13	98.20% <ø> (-0.01%)	⬇️
Py-3.13.13	98.45% <ø> (-0.01%)	⬇️
Py-3.14.4	98.51% <ø> (+<0.01%)	⬆️
Py-3.14.4t	97.51% <ø> (ø)
Py-pypy3.11.15-7.3.21	97.35% <ø> (ø)
VM-macos	97.89% <ø> (-0.01%)	⬇️
VM-ubuntu	98.72% <ø> (ø)
VM-windows	96.98% <ø> (ø)
cython-coverage	38.08% <ø> (+<0.01%)	⬆️

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

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

[codspeed-hq]

Merging this PR will not alter performance

✅ 67 untouched benchmarks
⏩ 4 skipped benchmarks¹

---

_{Comparing dependabot/pip/librt-0.10.0 (395ab07) with master (0c919f4)²}

Footnotes

1. 4 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 master (7fe1be2) during the generation of this report, so 0c919f4 was used instead as the comparison base. There might be some changes unrelated to this pull request in this report. ↩