fix: Bump websocket-driver from 0.7.4 to 0.7.5

[dependabot]

Bumps websocket-driver from 0.7.4 to 0.7.5.

Changelog

Sourced from websocket-driver's changelog.

0.7.5 / 2026-06-04

• Close a draft-75/76 connection if a length header grows to exceed the configured max length
• Fail the connection if a message is larger than the configured max length after extension processing

Commits

• 5d6a9aa Bump version to 0.7.5
• c55679a Fail the connection if a message is larger than the configured max length aft...
• 5b197ca Close a draft-75/76 connection if a length header grows to exceed the configu...
• fc93a48 Test on Node v22, v24, and v26
• 2e82d34 Test on recent versions of Node
• e4962db Switch from Travis CI to GitHub Actions
• 3f2f9b7 Travis update: cache npm modules, remove sudo, run on Node 15
• See full diff in compare view

[parse-github-assistant]

🚀 Thanks for opening this pull request! We appreciate your effort in improving the project. Please let us know once your pull request is ready for review.

Tip

• Keep pull requests small. Large PRs will be rejected. Break complex features into smaller, incremental PRs.
• Use Test Driven Development. Write failing tests before implementing functionality. Ensure tests pass.
• Group code into logical blocks. Add a short comment before each block to explain its purpose.
• We offer conceptual guidance. Coding is up to you. PRs must be merge-ready for human review.
• Our review focuses on concept, not quality. PRs with code issues will be rejected. Use an AI agent.
• Human review time is precious. Avoid review ping-pong. Inspect and test your AI-generated code.

Note

Please respond to review comments from AI agents just like you would to comments from a human reviewer. Let the reviewer resolve their own comments, unless they have reviewed and accepted your commit, or agreed with your explanation for why the feedback was incorrect.

Caution

Pull requests must be written using an AI agent with human supervision. Pull requests written entirely by a human will likely be rejected, because of lower code quality, higher review effort and the higher risk of introducing bugs. Please note that AI review comments on this pull request alone do not satisfy this requirement. Our CI and AI review are safeguards, not development tools. If many issues are flagged, rethink your development approach. Invest more effort in planning and design rather than using review cycles to fix low-quality code.