chore: require docs-lab owner review - #1754
Conversation
|
No actionable comments were generated in the recent review. 🎉 ℹ️ Recent review info⚙️ Run configurationConfiguration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml Review profile: CHILL Plan: Team Run ID: 📒 Files selected for processing (1)
Included review availability: Your plan provides up to 10 included reviews per hour; 9 remain after this review. 📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughThe CODEOWNERS file now assigns ownership of ChangesDocs Lab Ownership
Estimated code review effort: 1 (Trivial) | ~2 minutes Merge Risk: ⚪ Minimal · up to This change routes docs-lab review requests to the designated owner without changing runtime behavior, and no actionable merge-blocking risk remains after normal checks and review. Suggested reviewers: 🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 5✅ Passed checks (5 passed)
Full details: Docstring CoverageExplanation No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check. Docstring coverage is scoped to functions touched by this diff. Analyzed 0 functions across 0 files. (1 skipped: 1 unsupported.) ✨ Finishing Touches🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out. Comment |
Summary
@TabishBthe code owner for every file underdocs-lab/Why
Every docs-lab change needs final review from the docs owner. The more specific CODEOWNERS rule takes precedence over the repository default and routes those review requests directly to Tabish.
Verification
git diff --checkFollow-up
CODEOWNERS routes review requests but does not enforce approval on its own. The
mainbranch currently exposes no branch protection or ruleset requiring code-owner approval, so a repository ruleset is still needed if this must be merge-blocking.Summary by CodeRabbit