Skip to content

Conversation

@rcampos2029
Copy link
Collaborator

No description provided.

@openshift-ci
Copy link

openshift-ci bot commented Nov 20, 2025

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: rcampos2029

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

@coderabbitai
Copy link

coderabbitai bot commented Nov 20, 2025

Walkthrough

A new OWNERS file is added to specify repository approvers, designating rcampos2029 as an approver for the codebase.

Changes

Cohort / File(s) Summary
Repository configuration
OWNERS
New file added specifying repository approver.

Estimated code review effort

🎯 1 (Trivial) | ⏱️ ~2 minutes

Pre-merge checks and finishing touches

❌ Failed checks (1 inconclusive)
Check name Status Explanation Resolution
Description check ❓ Inconclusive No description was provided by the author, which is a limitation but the changeset itself is straightforward and self-explanatory. Consider adding a brief description explaining the purpose of the OWNERS file (e.g., designating code owners for governance or review assignments).
✅ Passed checks (2 passed)
Check name Status Explanation
Title check ✅ Passed The title directly and concisely describes the main change: adding a new OWNERS file to the repository.
Docstring Coverage ✅ Passed No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check.
✨ Finishing touches
🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
  • Create PR with unit tests
  • Post copyable unit tests in a comment

Tip

📝 Customizable high-level summaries are now available in beta!

You can now customize how CodeRabbit generates the high-level summary in your pull requests — including its content, structure, tone, and formatting.

  • Provide your own instructions using the high_level_summary_instructions setting.
  • Format the summary however you like (bullet lists, tables, multi-section layouts, contributor stats, etc.).
  • Use high_level_summary_in_walkthrough to move the summary from the description to the walkthrough section.

Example instruction:

"Divide the high-level summary into five sections:

  1. 📝 Description — Summarize the main change in 50–60 words, explaining what was done.
  2. 📓 References — List relevant issues, discussions, documentation, or related PRs.
  3. 📦 Dependencies & Requirements — Mention any new/updated dependencies, environment variable changes, or configuration updates.
  4. 📊 Contributor Summary — Include a Markdown table showing contributions:
    | Contributor | Lines Added | Lines Removed | Files Changed |
  5. ✔️ Additional Notes — Add any extra reviewer context.
    Keep each section concise (under 200 words) and use bullet or numbered lists for clarity."

Note: This feature is currently in beta for Pro-tier users, and pricing will be announced later.


Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.

Copy link

@coderabbitai coderabbitai bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Actionable comments posted: 0

🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
OWNERS (1)

1-2: Consider designating multiple approvers for project continuity.

The OWNERS file currently designates only one approver. For maintainability and project resilience, consider adding additional approvers to ensure code review capacity and continuity in case the primary approver is unavailable.

If multiple maintainers should be designated, apply this diff:

 approvers:
   - rcampos2029
+  - <additional_approver>

Alternatively, if this single-approver structure aligns with the project's governance model, this can be disregarded.

📜 Review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

Cache: Disabled due to data retention organization setting

Knowledge base: Disabled due to Reviews -> Disable Knowledge Base setting

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 3010ac2 and 1490b00.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)
  • OWNERS (1 hunks)
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms. You can increase the timeout in your CodeRabbit configuration to a maximum of 15 minutes (900000ms). (5)
  • GitHub Check: Red Hat Konflux / ocm-cli-on-pull-request
  • GitHub Check: Test (ubuntu-latest)
  • GitHub Check: Test (macos-latest)
  • GitHub Check: Test (windows-latest)
  • GitHub Check: Lint

@rcampos2029 rcampos2029 merged commit 38c37b3 into openshift-online:main Nov 20, 2025
11 of 12 checks passed
rcampos2029 added a commit to rcampos2029/ocm-cli that referenced this pull request Nov 25, 2025
- Update README.md
- Build a source container (openshift-online#874)
- update wif config to enable support for federated project (openshift-online#884)
- pool usage after update (openshift-online#888)
- Revert "pool usage after update (openshift-online#888)" (openshift-online#901)
- Red Hat Konflux update ocm-cli (openshift-online#882)
- update golang version (openshift-online#899)
- chore(deps): update konflux references
- added OWNERS file (openshift-online#937)
- OCM-2093 | fix: misaligned list users result
- OCM-2093 | fix: check eventual error raised by tabwriter's flush operation
@rcampos2029 rcampos2029 mentioned this pull request Nov 25, 2025
rcampos2029 added a commit that referenced this pull request Nov 27, 2025
- Update README.md
- Build a source container (#874)
- update wif config to enable support for federated project (#884)
- pool usage after update (#888)
- Revert "pool usage after update (#888)" (#901)
- Red Hat Konflux update ocm-cli (#882)
- update golang version (#899)
- chore(deps): update konflux references
- added OWNERS file (#937)
- OCM-2093 | fix: misaligned list users result
- OCM-2093 | fix: check eventual error raised by tabwriter's flush operation
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant