Merged
Conversation
|
😎 Merged successfully - details. |
tenesttang-trunk
approved these changes
Dec 12, 2024
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Modifies the codeowners parsing logic to first trying parsing a file as a GitLab codeowners file, else try parsing as a GitHub codeowners file.
In integrating with the ETL, we observed GitLab codeowners files being successfully parsed by the GitHub parser, and thus yielding incorrect results with respect to associating owners with a test file. Swapping the order here fixes that. GitLab codeowners syntax is generally a superset of GitHub syntax, so it should be ok if a GitHub codeowners file gets parsed as a GitLab file by our parser so long as it yields the correct results - and it has in local ETL testing.
The relevant diff here is small. The overall diff is inflated due to a test file rename