update sushi lib

[rouzwelt]

Motivation

update sushi submod that includes Aerodrome Slipstream V2

Solution

Checks

By submitting this for review, I'm confirming I've done the following:

• made this PR as small as possible
• unit-tested any new functionality
• linked any relevant issues or PRs
• included screenshots (if this involves a front-end change)

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Chores
  • Updated library dependency reference.

_{✏️ Tip: You can customize this high-level summary in your review settings.}

[coderabbitai]

Important

Review skipped

Draft detected.

Please check the settings in the CodeRabbit UI or the .coderabbit.yaml file in this repository. To trigger a single review, invoke the @coderabbitai review command.

You can disable this status message by setting the reviews.review_status to false in the CodeRabbit configuration file.

Walkthrough

Updates the git submodule reference for lib/sushiswap from commit 6db9829d92facf6185e253d0297a596e8b94cce7 to f75aaf785062009fb394b776a1dc0b6dd01d2232. This change only modifies the recorded commit pointer without altering any code or public APIs.

Changes

Cohort / File(s)	Summary
Submodule Reference Update lib/sushiswap	Updates submodule commit pointer from 6db9829d92facf6185e253d0297a596e8b94cce7 to f75aaf785062009fb394b776a1dc0b6dd01d2232

Estimated code review effort

🎯 1 (Trivial) | ⏱️ ~2 minutes

• Verify the new commit exists in the sushiswap repository and represents an intentional update
• Confirm the submodule update aligns with project dependencies and compatibility requirements

Pre-merge checks and finishing touches

❌ Failed checks (1 inconclusive)

Check name	Status	Explanation	Resolution
Title check	❓ Inconclusive	The title 'update sushi lib' is vague and lacks specificity about what was updated or why, using generic phrasing that doesn't convey meaningful information about the submodule version change or its purpose.	Consider a more descriptive title such as 'Update sushiswap submodule to include Aerodrome Slipstream V2' to better communicate the change's purpose and scope.

✅ Passed checks (2 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Description Check	✅ Passed	Check skipped - CodeRabbit’s high-level summary is enabled.
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check.

---

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.}

[github-actions]

@coderabbitai assess this PR size classification for the totality of the PR with the following criterias and report it in your comment:

S/M/L PR Classification Guidelines:

This guide helps classify merged pull requests by effort and complexity rather than just line count. The goal is to assess the difficulty and scope of changes after they have been completed.

Small (S)

Characteristics:

• Simple bug fixes, typos, or minor refactoring
• Single-purpose changes affecting 1-2 files
• Documentation updates
• Configuration tweaks
• Changes that require minimal context to review

Review Effort: Would have taken 5-10 minutes

Examples:

• Fix typo in variable name
• Update README with new instructions
• Adjust configuration values
• Simple one-line bug fixes
• Import statement cleanup

Medium (M)

Characteristics:

• Feature additions or enhancements
• Refactoring that touches multiple files but maintains existing behavior
• Breaking changes with backward compatibility
• Changes requiring some domain knowledge to review

Review Effort: Would have taken 15-30 minutes

Examples:

• Add new feature or component
• Refactor common utility functions
• Update dependencies with minor breaking changes
• Add new component with tests
• Performance optimizations
• More complex bug fixes

Large (L)

Characteristics:

• Major feature implementations
• Breaking changes or API redesigns
• Complex refactoring across multiple modules
• New architectural patterns or significant design changes
• Changes requiring deep context and multiple review rounds

Review Effort: Would have taken 45+ minutes

Examples:

• Complete new feature with frontend/backend changes
• Protocol upgrades or breaking changes
• Major architectural refactoring
• Framework or technology upgrades

Additional Factors to Consider

When deciding between sizes, also consider:

• Test coverage impact: More comprehensive test changes lean toward larger classification
• Risk level: Changes to critical systems bump up a size category
• Team familiarity: Novel patterns or technologies increase complexity

Notes:

• the assessment must be for the totality of the PR, that means comparing the base branch to the last commit of the PR
• the assessment output must be exactly one of: S, M or L (single-line comment) in format of: SIZE={S/M/L}
• do not include any additional text, only the size classification
• your assessment comment must not include tips or additional sections
• do NOT tag me or anyone else on your comment

[coderabbitai]

Tip

For best results, initiate chat on the files or code changes.

🧩 Analysis chain

🏁 Script executed:

#!/bin/bash
# Get the full diff of the PR
gh pr diff 419 --repo rainlanguage/rain.solver

# Get list of changed files
gh pr view 419 --repo rainlanguage/rain.solver --json files --jq '.files[] | {path: .path, additions: .additions, deletions: .deletions}'

# Get more details about the PR
gh pr view 419 --repo rainlanguage/rain.solver --json additions,deletions,changedFiles

Length of output: 346

---

SIZE=S

---

🧠 Learnings used

Learnt from: rouzwelt
Repo: rainlanguage/rain.solver PR: 409
File: src/router/types.ts:47-47
Timestamp: 2025-10-15T16:54:59.124Z
Learning: In the rain.solver codebase, it is acceptable to include `sushiRouter?: SushiRouter` in `RainSolverRouterQuoteParams` type. SushiRouter is the main router with the most liquidity and token support, and it may be used elsewhere in the codebase to get token prices, so passing it in quote params is justified despite introducing coupling.