You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Currently, I have a repository with the action setup to have last_files_match_only=true. When I open a PR with multiple files edited inside the PR that each have their own alias associated with them, I would expect that a single alias for each file edited would be added to the PR.
Based on the PR that added the last_files_match_only=true functionality (#80), it looks like the intention was to have the files section of codereviewers.yml to match the behavior of github's codeowners file.
I've setup a test repo (https://github.com/jamoor-moj/codereview_demo) that I can compare the behavior of codeowners and codereviewers (which is where I got the screenshots of the behavior above)
There is an open issue with the upstream repo (necojackarc#115) where the behavior when turning on last_files_match_only only matches one alias, even if mutliple files have been edited.
This is a different behavior than GitHub's codeowners file which the setting seeks to emulate.
This PR adds a per file check to the last match, allowing each file to add one alias assuming that that file matches a glob pattern inside the codereviewers yaml file.
Problem
Currently, I have a repository with the action setup to have
last_files_match_only=true
. When I open a PR with multiple files edited inside the PR that each have their own alias associated with them, I would expect that a single alias for each file edited would be added to the PR.codereviewers.yml
Changes in PR
Expected Behavior
Actual Behavior
Context
Based on the PR that added the
last_files_match_only=true
functionality (#80), it looks like the intention was to have thefiles
section ofcodereviewers.yml
to match the behavior of github'scodeowners
file.I've setup a test repo (https://github.com/jamoor-moj/codereview_demo) that I can compare the behavior of
codeowners
andcodereviewers
(which is where I got the screenshots of the behavior above)Codeowners: jamoor-moj/codereview_demo#4
Codereviewers: jamoor-moj/codereview_demo#5
Is my understanding correct that this was the intention and therefore this is a bug? Or was that not the intention and this is an enhancement?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: