feat: Add support for copilot_code_review rule type
#3857
Conversation
|
Thanks for your pull request! It looks like this may be your first contribution to a Google open source project. Before we can look at your pull request, you'll need to sign a Contributor License Agreement (CLA). View this failed invocation of the CLA check for more information. For the most up to date status, view the checks section at the bottom of the pull request. |
JiayangZhou
force-pushed
the
feature/copilot-code-review-ruleset
branch
from
d68c9c1 to
fab8541
Compare
|
This is for Github Terraform provider to support code review bot feature in repo ruleset, relevant PR: |
Codecov Report❌ Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #3857 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 92.36% 92.35% -0.01%
==========================================
Files 199 199
Lines 14308 14324 +16
==========================================
+ Hits 13215 13229 +14
- Misses 894 895 +1
- Partials 199 200 +1 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
Add support for GitHub's Copilot code review feature in repository rulesets, allowing automatic code review requests for pull requests. Changes: - Add RulesetRuleTypeCopilotCodeReview constant to rule types - Add CopilotCodeReviewRuleParameters struct with review_new_pushes and review_draft_pull_requests fields - Implement marshal/unmarshal logic for copilot_code_review rules - Add comprehensive test coverage for the new rule type The copilot_code_review rule supports two configuration options: - review_new_pushes: Automatically review each new push to the PR - review_draft_pull_requests: Automatically review draft PRs
JiayangZhou
force-pushed
the
feature/copilot-code-review-ruleset
branch
from
fab8541 to
2b90cfa
Compare
|
Force-pushing is completely unnecessary. Please see CONTRIBUTING.md for why. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Are you missing a case between before the original line 1173 (now line 1197)?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
hopefully fixed it, thank you for staying on top of it, any way we can know coverage from local, like spin up Codecov locally maybe..that way it is easier and you do not have to trigger it every time
There was a problem hiding this comment.
hopefully fixed it, thank you for staying on top of it, any way we can know coverage from local, like spin up Codecov locally maybe..that way it is easier and you do not have to trigger it every time
Yes, Go has built-in code coverage tools if you would like to run them locally.
It may be very interesting, but is not required that you use them for this repo.
Here is some more information about it: https://go.dev/blog/integration-test-coverage
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks I think based on go tool cover the coverage for patch code is between 88 - 90, some of the uncovered unmarshal error are just defensive error handling and not covered in other GH repo rule types in this file too so maybe we can let them slip? thanks!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, clicking on the Codecov link doesn't reveal anything specific, so I'm not going to worry about it. Thanks!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Are you missing a case between before the original line 1173 (now line 1197)?
I'm still seeing what I think might be a missing case. If you search for the previous RulesetRule:
$ rg RulesetRuleTypeWorkflows
github/rules_test.go
901: Type: RulesetRuleTypeWorkflows,
github/rules.go
89: RulesetRuleTypeWorkflows RepositoryRuleType = "workflows"
726: bytes, err := marshalRepositoryRulesetRule(RulesetRuleTypeWorkflows, r.Workflows)
952: case RulesetRuleTypeWorkflows:
1163: case RulesetRuleTypeWorkflows:
1350: case RulesetRuleTypeWorkflows:
you will note that there is the longer section around line 726 and then THREE switch statements that need to be handled. In this PR, I only see two case statements for your new Ruleset. Please fix.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hi the one for RulesetRuleTypeWorkflows at line 1163 is under func (r *BranchRules) UnmarshalJSON(
the code review is only available for repository ruleset, you can also see at line 328, the struct of type BranchRules struct { does not have CopilotCodeReview which is only defined at RepositoryRulesetRules line 291 in new code.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Oh, OK. Sorry about that, my mistake. Thank you, @JiayangZhou!
gmlewis
changed the title
copilot_code_review rule type
gmlewis
left a comment
gmlewis
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thank you, @JiayangZhou!
LGTM.
Awaiting second LGTM+Approval from any other contributor to this repo before merging.
cc: @stevehipwell - @alexandear - @zyfy29
2 participants
Add CopilotCodeReviewRuleParameters struct with ReviewNewPushes and ReviewDraftPullRequests fields to support GitHub's Copilot code review rule for repository rulesets.
Changes:
this feature is based on https://github.blog/changelog/2025-09-10-copilot-code-review-independent-repository-rule-for-automatic-reviews/ (an independent repository rule instead of pull request rule)