chore(release): prepare v0.14.0

[nao1215]

Changed

• multipartkit/infer.content_type_from_filename and content_type_from_bytes are no longer no-ops: they now resolve well-known extensions and magic-byte signatures by delegating to nao1215/mimetype, returning Some(mime) for recognised input ("a.png" -> Some("image/png"), a PNG header -> Some("image/png")) and None otherwise. nao1215/mimetype is added as a runtime dependency. A new infer.builtin_inferer() wires these helpers into an Inferer so form.add_file_auto_with(form, ..., infer.builtin_inferer()) gets built-in inference; infer.default_inferer() is intentionally kept a no-op so add_file_auto still falls through to application/octet-stream and never changes a content type implicitly. This reverses the v0.13.0 (infer.content_type_from_filename/from_bytes are no-op defaults — silently return None for known types #52) decision to ship these helpers as documented no-ops. (REGRESSION: infer.content_type_from_filename / from_bytes still return None for known PNG / JSON / PDF / GIF (closes #52 not effective) #59)

Fixed

• multipartkit/form.add_field no longer lets an empty (or stripped-to-empty / whitespace-only) name reach the wire as Content-Disposition: form-data; name="". The lenient builder now renames such a part to a generated "_unnamed_<n>" placeholder (where <n> is the part's zero-based position), so the observable name is never Some("") and the part stays RFC 7578-addressable. The placeholder is position-based, not collision-proof against a caller who also supplies a literal "_unnamed_<k>". Callers that want bad names surfaced as a typed error rather than renamed should use add_field_strict. (REGRESSION: form.add_field still silently strips CR/LF from field name (closes #40 not effective) #57, REGRESSION: form.add_field still silently accepts empty name → Some('') (closes #51 incomplete) #58)

[coderabbitai]

Warning

Review limit reached

@nao1215, we couldn't start this review because you've reached your PR review rate limit.

More reviews will be available in 17 minutes and 53 seconds. Learn how PR review limits work.

Your organization has run out of usage credits. Purchase more in the billing tab.

⌛ How to resolve this issue?

After more reviews become available, a review can be triggered using the @coderabbitai review command as a PR comment. Alternatively, push new commits to this PR.

We recommend that you space out your commits to avoid hitting the rate limit.

🚦 How do rate limits work?

CodeRabbit enforces hourly rate limits for each developer per organization.

Our paid plans include higher PR review limits than trial, open-source, and free plans. In all cases, reviews become available again over time. During sustained high-volume PR review activity, CodeRabbit may temporarily slow when the next review becomes available.

Please see our Fair Usage Limits Policy for further information.

ℹ️ Review info

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: defaults

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

Run ID: f8a27afd-552c-4f30-a93a-60dd7804420b

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 866d07f and 32ec2fb.

📒 Files selected for processing (2)

• CHANGELOG.md
• gleam.toml

✨ Finishing Touches

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests
• Commit unit tests in branch release/v0.14.0

---

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.}