You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Originally, I thought it would be a good idea to use the approvals part of the Zappr configuration spec by removing some of the unnecessary ones, but when I read their documentation again, I started to think that the spec is complicated.
In particular, I find it difficult to distinguish between from and groups. As I understand it, the users specified in from are those who are considered as reviewers, and the users specified in groups are the reviewers who must approve.
# just an example how to configure itapprovals:
pattern: "^(:\\+1:|👍)"# must start with thumbs upminimum: 2# at least two approvals from other people necessaryignore: pr_opener # do not count approval from PR openerfrom: # has to be either one of the followingorgs:
- zalandocollaborators: trueusers:
- prayerslayer
- mfellnergroups:
# mfellner is required approver on every PRseniors:
minimum: 1from:
users:
- mfellner
In the use case we were originally thinking of, it is important to be able to specify people who must be approved, such as those specified in groups, so I think it would be a good idea to implement this specification first. However, even in that case, I think the name groups is confusing, so it would be better to think of another name.
Originally, I thought it would be a good idea to use the
approvals
part of the Zappr configuration spec by removing some of the unnecessary ones, but when I read their documentation again, I started to think that the spec is complicated.https://zappr.readthedocs.io/en/latest/setup/
In particular, I find it difficult to distinguish between
from
andgroups
. As I understand it, the users specified infrom
are those who are considered as reviewers, and the users specified ingroups
are the reviewers who must approve.In the use case we were originally thinking of, it is important to be able to specify people who must be approved, such as those specified in
groups
, so I think it would be a good idea to implement this specification first. However, even in that case, I think the namegroups
is confusing, so it would be better to think of another name.@dchomh @rerwinx I would appreciate your thoughts on this!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: