fix: regenerate corrupted bun.lock and add explicit packageManager

[ngoiyaeric]

User description

This PR fixes the build failures in PR #350 by regenerating the corrupted bun.lock file and adding an explicit packageManager field to package.json to ensure Vercel uses Bun consistently.

---

PR Type

Bug fix

---

Description

• Regenerate corrupted bun.lock file with JSON parsing error

• Remove 40+ duplicate package entries causing build failures

• Add explicit packageManager field to ensure Vercel uses Bun

• Fix build detection mismatch between pnpm and Bun

---

Diagram Walkthrough

flowchart LR
  A["Corrupted bun.lock<br/>JSON parse error"] -->|"Regenerate"| B["Valid bun.lock<br/>No duplicates"]
  C["Missing packageManager<br/>field"] -->|"Add explicit field"| D["packageManager: bun@1.3.5"]
  B -->|"Fixes"| E["Build succeeds<br/>on Vercel"]
  D -->|"Ensures"| E

Loading

File Walkthrough

	Relevant files
Configuration changes	package.json Add explicit Bun package manager specification                      package.json Add packageManager field set to bun@1.3.5 Ensures Vercel consistently uses Bun instead of detecting pnpm Resolves package manager detection mismatch +1/-0
Bug fix	bun.lock Regenerate corrupted lock file with duplicates removed      bun.lock Regenerate entire lock file to fix JSON parsing error at line 2683 Remove 40+ duplicate package entries Restore valid lock file structure

---

[vercel]

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for GitHub.

Project	Deployment	Review	Updated (UTC)
qcx	Error		Dec 30, 2025 7:12am

[coderabbitai]

Important

Review skipped

Auto reviews are disabled on base/target branches other than the default branch.

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.

---

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.}

[qodo-code-review]

PR Compliance Guide 🔍

Below is a summary of compliance checks for this PR:

Security Compliance
🟢	No security concerns identified No security vulnerabilities detected by AI analysis. Human verification advised for critical code.
Ticket Compliance
⚪	🎫 No ticket provided Create ticket/issue
Codebase Duplication Compliance
⚪	Codebase context is not defined Follow the guide to enable codebase context checks.
Custom Compliance
🟢	Generic: Comprehensive Audit Trails Objective: To create a detailed and reliable record of critical system actions for security analysis and compliance. Status: Passed Learn more about managing compliance generic rules or creating your own custom rules
	Generic: Meaningful Naming and Self-Documenting Code Objective: Ensure all identifiers clearly express their purpose and intent, making code self-documenting Status: Passed Learn more about managing compliance generic rules or creating your own custom rules
	Generic: Robust Error Handling and Edge Case Management Objective: Ensure comprehensive error handling that provides meaningful context and graceful degradation Status: Passed Learn more about managing compliance generic rules or creating your own custom rules
	Generic: Secure Error Handling Objective: To prevent the leakage of sensitive system information through error messages while providing sufficient detail for internal debugging. Status: Passed Learn more about managing compliance generic rules or creating your own custom rules
	Generic: Secure Logging Practices Objective: To ensure logs are useful for debugging and auditing without exposing sensitive information like PII, PHI, or cardholder data. Status: Passed Learn more about managing compliance generic rules or creating your own custom rules
	Generic: Security-First Input Validation and Data Handling Objective: Ensure all data inputs are validated, sanitized, and handled securely to prevent vulnerabilities Status: Passed Learn more about managing compliance generic rules or creating your own custom rules

Compliance status legend

🟢 - Fully Compliant
🟡 - Partial Compliant
🔴 - Not Compliant
⚪ - Requires Further Human Verification
🏷️ - Compliance label

[charliecreates]

No issues found in the shown diff. Adding "packageManager": "bun@1.3.5" is a sensible, low-risk way to pin the expected package manager/version for CI and Vercel consistency.

Additional notes (1)

• Maintainability | package.json:3-7
  Pinning packageManager to an exact Bun version can improve determinism, but it also creates a maintenance burden and can unnecessarily block builds if your CI/Vercel environment lags that exact version. If the intent is “use Bun consistently” (not necessarily exactly 1.3.5), consider allowing patch updates (or documenting why an exact pin is required).

Also, double-check that bun@1.3.5 is actually the minimum version required for this lockfile/regeneration (vs 1.3.x generally).

Summary of changes

What changed

• Added an explicit packageManager field to package.json: "packageManager": "bun@1.3.5".

Why (per PR context)

• Ensures platforms like Vercel consistently use Bun (and the expected Bun version) when installing dependencies, avoiding mismatches where Bun is used but another lockfile/manager is inferred.
• The accompanying PR description mentions regenerating a corrupted bun.lock (not shown in this snippet).

[qodo-code-review]

PR Code Suggestions ✨

No code suggestions found for the PR.