Skip to content

Conversation

@RahulGautamSingh
Copy link
Collaborator

Changes

  • If unable to find a reviewer, skip instead of failing so we can still add the other reviewers

Context

Please select one of the following:

AI assistance disclosure

Did you use AI tools to create any part of this pull request?

Please select one option and, if yes, briefly describe how AI was used (e.g., code, tests, docs) and which tool(s) you used.

  • No — I did not use AI for this contribution.
  • Yes — minimal assistance (e.g., IDE autocomplete, small code completions, grammar fixes).
  • Yes — substantive assistance (AI-generated non‑trivial portions of code, tests, or documentation).
  • Yes — other (please describe):

Documentation (please check one with an [x])

  • I have updated the documentation, or
  • No documentation update is required

How I've tested my work (please select one)

I have verified these changes via:

  • Code inspection only, or
  • Newly added/modified unit tests, or
  • No unit tests, but ran on a real repository, or
  • Both unit tests + ran on a real repository

The public repository: https://gitlab.com/rahultesnik/test-codeowners/-/merge_requests/8

@RahulGautamSingh RahulGautamSingh added the ci:allow-undesirable Skip the undesirable files CI check label Nov 28, 2025
Copy link
Member

@secustor secustor left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think only printing this once makes sense here

secustor
secustor previously approved these changes Dec 2, 2025
jamietanna
jamietanna previously approved these changes Dec 2, 2025
@jamietanna jamietanna enabled auto-merge December 2, 2025 10:17
auto-merge was automatically disabled December 3, 2025 08:26

Head branch was pushed to by a user without write access

Copy link
Member

@viceice viceice left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

change can be done in separate PR

return [await getUserID(r)];
} catch {
// Unable to fetch userId, try resolve as a group
return getMemberUserIDs(r);
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

we should change this to be similar to forgejo and GitHub. so teams need to be prefixed with team:

Copy link
Collaborator Author

@RahulGautamSingh RahulGautamSingh Dec 11, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Won't that break the feature as it's not necessary to use team: prefix in the CODEOWNERS file?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

😕 that's disapointing. on github they are prefixed with @org/ in CODEOWNERS 🤔

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

ci:allow-undesirable Skip the undesirable files CI check

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

reviewersFromCodeOwners does not request any users if one user doesn't exist

4 participants