CI - BUGFIX - Count a reviewer as named once they have reviewed - #409
Open
logan-nc wants to merge 2 commits into
Open
CI - BUGFIX - Count a reviewer as named once they have reviewed#409logan-nc wants to merge 2 commits into
logan-nc wants to merge 2 commits into
Conversation
The metadata job read only requested_reviewers, which holds pending review requests. GitHub removes a reviewer from that list as soon as they submit a review, so the check went quiet while nobody had reviewed and fired once somebody did -- nagging precisely the pull requests furthest along. Treat a submitted review from anyone other than the author as evidence that a reviewer was named. Assignment alone still suffices; the reviewer never has to act. Verified against all open pull requests: silences #390, #391, #392, #407, leaves every pending-request PR untouched, and still nags the nine with nobody named. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Dh1NCejnd3fYMmcRKoQRcG
logan-nc
marked this pull request as draft
August 19, 2026 12:04
Focus values were all src/ modules, so a workflow or conventions change had nobody obvious to review it and landed unassigned -- which is how the reviewer nag this branch fixes went unowned. Add the CI and Repo Areas from naming.md to the two maintainers who work on repository plumbing, and say in the prose that Focus names Areas outside src/ too. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Dh1NCejnd3fYMmcRKoQRcG
Collaborator
Author
|
@matt-pharr this one is a very small diff - quick review |
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.
Release note
The PR Conventions bot claimed a pull request was "missing a reviewer" on pull requests that had one. It checked only
requested_reviewers, which holds pending review requests — GitHub drops a reviewer from that list the moment they submit a review. The check therefore stayed quiet while nobody had reviewed and fired once someone did.Regression report
Not applicable: this changes
.github/only, no files undersrc/.Notes for reviewers
A reviewer counts as named whether or not they have acted — assignment alone is sufficient, exactly as before. The added
listReviewscall is not a requirement that someone review; it only remembers an assignment GitHub has already cleared.Timeline on #391, which is the reported case:
requested_reviewersreview_requested[krystophny]— quiet[]— GitHub auto-clears[]— posts the nagNo
review_request_removedevent appears in the timeline, so nobody unassigned them; the clearing was GitHub's own on review submission.Replaying old vs new against all 25 open pull requests:
Self-reviews are excluded (
r.user.login !== pr.user.login) so an author commenting on their own pull request does not satisfy the check. Any review state counts —APPROVED,CHANGES_REQUESTED, orCOMMENTED— since the check is about a human being named, not about approval.