Count Software Mansion maintainers in peer review checks - #103
Conversation
|
@codex review |
![chatgpt-codex-connector[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1144995?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
This comment was marked as resolved.
This comment was marked as resolved.
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
@codex review |
|
Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. What shall we delve into next? Reviewed commit: ℹ️ About Codex in GitHubCodex has been enabled to automatically review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍. When you sign up for Codex through ChatGPT, Codex can also answer questions or update the PR, like "@codex address that feedback". |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: b699d31939
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Codex has been enabled to automatically review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
When you sign up for Codex through ChatGPT, Codex can also answer questions or update the PR, like "@codex address that feedback".
| // GitHub's List commits on a pull request endpoint never returns more than 250 commits, no matter how it's paginated, | ||
| // so commit authorship can't be reliably determined above this count. | ||
| const MAX_VERIFIABLE_COMMITS = 250; | ||
| const SOFTWARE_MANSION_REPOSITORIES = new Set(['Expensify/react-native-wallet', 'Expensify/react-native-live-markdown']); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
For PRs in either repository added here, a listed Software Mansion maintainer can now satisfy the check without any Expensify employee approval, but README.md line 42 still describes this workflow as universally verifying an “independent employee approval.” That leaves the documented security policy stricter than the policy actually enforced, so update the workflow description to mention these eligible external maintainers and their repository scope.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
| // so commit authorship can't be reliably determined above this count. | ||
| const MAX_VERIFIABLE_COMMITS = 250; | ||
| const SOFTWARE_MANSION_REPOSITORIES = new Set(['Expensify/react-native-wallet', 'Expensify/react-native-live-markdown']); | ||
| const SOFTWARE_MANSION_REVIEWERS = new Set(['JakubKorytko', 'Skalakid', 'WoLewicki', 'brunovjk', 'j-piasecki', 'jmusial', 'staszekscp', 'tomekzaw', 'war-in', 'zfurtak']); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
roryabraham
changed the title
This comment was marked as resolved.
This comment was marked as resolved.
Sorry, something went wrong.
roryabraham
changed the title
roryabraham
changed the title
Repo-specific teams add reviewers, they do not replace expensify-expensify members.
|
@codex review |
|
Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. Keep them coming! Reviewed commit: ℹ️ About Codex in GitHubCodex has been enabled to automatically review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍. When you sign up for Codex through ChatGPT, Codex can also answer questions or update the PR, like "@codex address that feedback". |
Always include expensify-expensify, fetch all relevant teams together, then filter against the union.
Remove filterAsync, isExpensifyEmployee, and getEmployeeLogins now that eligibility uses parallel team lookups.
roryabraham
changed the title
|
updated, ready for another review |
2 participants
Details
Allow the configured Software Mansion maintainers to count as independent peer reviewers for
Expensify/react-native-walletandExpensify/react-native-live-markdown. Other repositories continue to require approval from an Expensify employee.Related Issues
Closes https://github.com/Expensify/Expensify/issues/668529
Manual Tests
n/a - automated tests only.
Linked PRs
N/A