Fundamentals: Automatically request reviewers

[Koshy John (kjohn-msft)]

This is to incorporate a workflow to automatically add a larger reviewer group to PRs.

Adds backup org owner due to org changes.

[Copilot]

Pull request overview

This PR adds automation to request a predefined set of reviewers when a pull request is opened (or marked ready for review), aiming to broaden reviewer coverage for PRs in this repository.

Changes:

• Updates CODEOWNERS to change the default owners for all paths.
• Adds a GitHub Actions workflow that requests a specific list of reviewers on PR open / ready-for-review.

Reviewed changes

Copilot reviewed 2 out of 2 changed files in this pull request and generated 3 comments.

File	Description
CODEOWNERS	Adjusts global code owner assignments (default * pattern).
.github/workflows/auto-request-reviewers.yml	Introduces an action to auto-request reviewers on PR lifecycle events.

---

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 94.69%. Comparing base (ed52180) to head (f818c0a).

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master     #375   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   94.69%   94.69%           
=======================================
  Files         111      111           
  Lines       20860    20860           
=======================================
  Hits        19753    19753           
  Misses       1107     1107           

Flag	Coverage Δ
python27	94.69% <ø> (+0.08%)	⬆️
python312	94.69% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[Copilot]

Pull request overview

Copilot reviewed 2 out of 2 changed files in this pull request and generated no new comments.

Suppressed comments (3)

CODEOWNERS:1

• The PR description says this change is to add a larger reviewer group, but this CODEOWNERS update removes @najams (reducing the default reviewer/owner set). If that removal is not intentional, add them back; otherwise, update the PR description to reflect that CODEOWNERS is being narrowed while a workflow handles broader review requests.

*       @kjohn-msft @rane-rajasi

.github/workflows/auto-request-reviewers.yml:14

• This workflow will still run on PRs opened as drafts (because opened fires for draft PRs) and will also fail for PRs from forks because pull_request workflows get a read-only GITHUB_TOKEN even if pull-requests: write is requested. Add a job-level if: to skip draft-on-open and skip fork PRs (or switch to pull_request_target with appropriate hardening).

jobs:
  request-reviewers:

.github/workflows/auto-request-reviewers.yml:27

• Reviewers are hard-coded as individual usernames; this is brittle (renames/offboarding cause failures) and requires a code change for routine updates. If possible, prefer requesting a GitHub team via team_reviewers (or sourcing the list from a single maintained place).

            const reviewers = [
              'GAURAVRAMRAWOCHYANI',
              'kjohn-msft',
              'michellemcdeniel',

[Copilot]

Pull request overview

Copilot reviewed 2 out of 2 changed files in this pull request and generated no new comments.

Suppressed comments (4)

CODEOWNERS:1

• This change removes @najams from CODEOWNERS, which reduces the default reviewer/owner coverage and seems to conflict with the PR goal of adding a larger reviewer group. If this removal isn’t intentional, revert it (or update the PR description to match the intent).

*       @kjohn-msft @rane-rajasi

.github/workflows/auto-request-reviewers.yml:16

• The workflow triggers on pull_request: opened, which also fires for draft PRs. As written, reviewers will be requested even when the PR is still a draft; the usual intent is to wait until it’s ready_for_review.

jobs:
  request-reviewers:
    runs-on: ubuntu-latest

.github/workflows/auto-request-reviewers.yml:8

• Including the synchronize event will re-run this job on every push to the PR and re-call pulls.requestReviewers, creating redundant API calls and potentially repeated notifications. If re-requesting isn’t required, drop synchronize (or add logic to only request reviewers who aren’t already requested).

  pull_request:
    types:
      - opened
      - ready_for_review
      - synchronize

.github/workflows/auto-request-reviewers.yml:33

• The reviewer set is hard-coded in the workflow. To avoid code changes whenever membership changes, consider requesting a GitHub team via team_reviewers (or sourcing the list from a versioned config) so the reviewer group can be managed centrally.

            const reviewers = [
              'GAURAVRAMRAWOCHYANI',
              'kjohn-msft',
              'michellemcdeniel',
              'mirichno',
              'nikhim-um',
              'rane-rajasi',
              'SathishMSFT',
              'yashnap'
            ];

[Copilot]

Pull request overview

Copilot reviewed 2 out of 2 changed files in this pull request and generated no new comments.

Suppressed comments (2)

.github/workflows/auto-request-reviewers.yml:15

• This workflow will fail for pull requests opened from forks because the pull_request event uses a read-only GITHUB_TOKEN in that scenario, so pulls.requestReviewers cannot write reviewer requests. Add a job-level condition to skip forked PRs (or switch to pull_request_target with appropriate hardening).

  request-reviewers:
    runs-on: ubuntu-latest

CODEOWNERS:1

• The PR description only mentions adding an auto-reviewer workflow, but this change also removes @najams from CODEOWNERS, which will reduce automatic code-owner review requests. If this removal isn't intentional, restore the entry; otherwise update/split the PR so the ownership change is explicitly documented.

*       @kjohn-msft @rane-rajasi

[Copilot]

Pull request overview

Copilot reviewed 2 out of 2 changed files in this pull request and generated no new comments.

Suppressed comments (1)

CODEOWNERS:3

• CODEOWNERS currently includes extra trailing blank/whitespace-only lines. This can create noisy diffs and may confuse tooling that validates CODEOWNERS formatting.

[Rajasi Rane (rane-rajasi)]

One comment

[Copilot]

Pull request overview

Copilot reviewed 2 out of 2 changed files in this pull request and generated no new comments.

Suppressed comments (1)

CODEOWNERS:3

• CODEOWNERS currently ends with extra blank/whitespace-only lines. While GitHub typically ignores blank lines, keeping the file to only meaningful entries avoids accidental whitespace-only lines and reduces churn in future edits.

*       @kjohn-msft @rane-rajasi @mirichmo