autocomplete
autocomplete copied to clipboard
withfig
idea: assign CODEOWNERS by file
Sanity checks
- [X] I have searched github.com/withfig/fig/issues and there are no duplicates of my feature
Feature Details
Description:
In the autocomplete repo, would it be better to assign spec creators as codeowners for the spec they created? E.g. you created the gh spec, you are added in CODEOWNERS for that specific file
I believe this would help other people, in addition to the creator, change and revise specs, because the creator will be pinged whenever there is a PR affecting the file, and they could offer their input.
Having to maintain the codeowners file honestly doesn't sound as the most appealing thing to me.
Having to maintain the codeowners file honestly doesn't sound as the most appealing thing to me.
Maybe, we could have people add themselves to CODEOWNERS in the same PR when they add new specs?
I really like this idea! I think it empowers contributors and will keep people more involved.
I wonder if this can be done with a GitHub action?
I really like this idea! I think it empowers contributors and will keep people more involved.
I wonder if this can be done with a GitHub action?
It probably could be done with an action, is there any variable you can call in the GitHub API for PRs that is something similar to "files_affected"?
Not sure how this could be implemented with a GH action. Also, sometimes people who create a spec don't want to maintain it, so this would have to be optional.
Not sure how this could be implemented with a GH action. Also, sometimes people who create a spec don't want to maintain it, so this would have to be optional.
@mschrage, any ideas on how this can be implemented while making it optional? A GH action probably wouldn't work.
@import-brain @QuiiBz Could it be done as a precommit hook?
If a new spec is staged that has no codeowner, the commit hook can ask the user to enter their Github username if they would like to become the owner of the spec.
I think we can do something with fig-bot in the PR body instead.
Yeah, perhaps a checkbox? That could work
@import-brain would you be interested in implementing this?
This is neither my area of expertise nor my cup of tea, is there anyone that knows how to implement it well? Who wrote the bot?
Or, is there a central todo list of new features to be implemented? This could go on there.
Yeah! But I'm not sure if he has time to work on this unfortunately.
Well then, perhaps I could give it a try. With some experimentation, I could probably whip something up that works, might take a decent bit of time though...
Ohhhhh I like this, I would really love to do this. I can prototype a GitHub action tonight and show you, unless you folks @import-brain @fedeci wanna take your time with it
Ohhhhh I like this, I would really love to do this. I can prototype a GitHub action tonight and show you, unless you folks @import-brain @fedeci wanna take your time with it
Great, please do it! I am not very experienced in actions, you'll do better than what I could do :)
@BogDAAAMN have you already started working on this? If not I can do it tomorrow.
Noo, I totally overestimated my free time, I am sorry 😭 Started trying some stuff, but it's not worth checking out. Please do, I'd be happy to see what you do
Drafted this https://github.com/fedeci/add-codeowners-action. It is a minimal version but it works, I will update it in the next days to support more features and to improve reliability
Drafted this fedeci/add-codeowners-action. It is a minimal version but it works, I will update it in the next days to support more features and to improve reliability
Wow, this looks great, thank you!
Based on the fact that #806 was merged, I think this can be closed.
All, thank you for the great work! 🚀
It was merged and reverted, I prefer to keep this open😅
Didn't notice the revert PR, my bad 😅