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
{{ message }}
This repository has been archived by the owner on Sep 29, 2023. It is now read-only.
We created an example of a useless pattern named Gumfile that should suggest Gemfile but the Gemfile is already in place in the code owners file. In this case, it should suggest to add one more owner instead of adding a new line to the owners' file. Or suggest to delete the line, or ignore the suggestion.
We're not sure about the best approach, we need to research and see what fits better for our flow.
Analyzing the issue we brought the following points:
If we suggest something that is already in the code owners we're going to duplicate the ownership lines.
If we find multiple patterns matching the same file, and the pattern is generic, covering a folder, it's ok.
But, if the pattern is only covering one file and it's duplicated in the code owners definition we could merge the owners and make it a single line.
We're confused with the direction of the implementation:
Focus on what is duplicated can lead us to fix the issue but will not avoid suggesting duplicates
Process all files against all patterns will be expensive to process
If we remove all suggestions, maybe it will not bring a good suggestion and we'll need to upgrade our fuzzy match search.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
We created an example of a useless pattern named
Gumfile
that should suggestGemfile
but the Gemfile is already in place in the code owners file. In this case, it should suggest to add one more owner instead of adding a new line to the owners' file. Or suggest to delete the line, or ignore the suggestion.We're not sure about the best approach, we need to research and see what fits better for our flow.
Analyzing the issue we brought the following points:
If we suggest something that is already in the code owners we're going to duplicate the ownership lines.
If we find multiple patterns matching the same file, and the pattern is generic, covering a folder, it's ok.
But, if the pattern is only covering one file and it's duplicated in the code owners definition we could merge the owners and make it a single line.
We're confused with the direction of the implementation:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: