Vlad Chesnokov

Thank you for providing a valid reproducer. The issue is in the backlog of the relevant team but the existence of a workaround makes it non-critical so it might take...

Workaround: include the action twice ```yml - name: GitHub CODEOWNERS Validator uses: mszostok/[email protected] if: github.event.pull_request.head.repo.full_name == github.repository with: checks: "files,duppatterns,syntax" experimental_checks: "notowned,avoid-shadowing" # downgrading to 0.7.2 for owners check to...

@drieks Sorry for the late reply. This PR got stuck in the review queue because we needed a team's decision on * https://github.com/gradle/gradle/issues/26143 Given that we [have it](https://github.com/gradle/gradle/issues/26143#issuecomment-3223877031) now, the...

Sorry for the late reply. This issue needs a decision from the team responsible for that area. They have been informed. Response time may vary. *** It's still reproducible in...

This issue needs a decision from the team responsible for that area. They have been informed. Response time may vary. *** It's unlikely that the issue will be resolved that...

@Pankraz76 We already discussed that topic in * https://github.com/gradle/gradle/issues/34890 Our answer was no. It's unreasonable to expect that somebody will review a PR with 5000+ changed files. For experiments, you...

> I just wanted to share my findings, as its possible to integrate with checkstyle, by only dropping a few checks. Thank you for the clarification. I suggest that for...

The issue is in the backlog of the relevant team and is prioritized by them. Related: * https://github.com/gradle/gradle/issues/22799

Thank you for your contribution! Please add tests to cover your changes.

Thanks for the investigation! > I guess even though map is tail recursive your recurse is not Yes, this was done on purpose in the reproducer. My point was about...