Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Improve code coverage of src/info/repo/contributors.rs #814

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Oct 11, 2022
Merged

Improve code coverage of src/info/repo/contributors.rs #814

merged 2 commits into from
Oct 11, 2022

Conversation

alessandroasm
Copy link
Contributor

Part of task #700

Copy link
Collaborator

@Byron Byron left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I'd not be the best choice in reviewer for anything that doesn't touch gitoxide, but LGTM.

@spenserblack
Copy link
Collaborator

@Byron I think it just happens automatically because of this:

/src/info/repo @o2sh @Byron

Should the definition be changed?

@Byron
Copy link
Collaborator

Byron commented Oct 11, 2022

Thanks for clarifying! It's interesting that the messaging around this that originates from GitHub is ambiguous at best or even misleading:

@alessandroasm requested your review on: #814 Improve code coverage of src/info/repo/contributors.rs as a code owner.

To me it really seems that alessandroasm triggered it intentionally even though it's happening automatically.

@spenserblack, if you see a way to narrow the code-ownership to files that deal with gitoxide that would be appreciated, but it wouldn't be a big deal to leave it as is either. Thank you.

@alessandroasm
Copy link
Contributor Author

alessandroasm commented Oct 11, 2022

@Byron I didn't request a review manually, I think the repo is configured to automatically do that. :)

Conflicts with main branch resolved.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants