Visitar URL original
Revert "Limit CODEOWNERS to pinging plasmapy-reviewers group" by rocco8773 · Pull Request #1739 · PlasmaPy/PlasmaPy · GitHub
Skip to content

Revert "Limit CODEOWNERS to pinging plasmapy-reviewers group" - #1739

Merged
StanczakDominik merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
revert-1351-codeowners_but_its_all_public_property
Sep 13, 2022
Merged

StanczakDominik merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
revert-1351-codeowners_but_its_all_public_property

Conversation

@rocco8773

@rocco8773 rocco8773 commented Sep 13, 2022 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Reverts #1351

We decided we like the more granular approach.

@rocco8773
rocco8773 requested a review from a team as a code owner September 13, 2022 18:27
@rocco8773
rocco8773 requested review from namurphy and removed request for a team September 13, 2022 18:27
@rocco8773 rocco8773 self-assigned this Sep 13, 2022
@rocco8773
rocco8773 requested a review from a team September 13, 2022 18:28
@github-actions

github-actions Bot commented Sep 13, 2022 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Thank you for contributing to PlasmaPy! The project's future depends deeply on contributors like you, so we deeply appreciate it! 🌱 The following checklist will be used by the code reviewer to help guide the code review process.

  • Overall
    • Does the PR do what it intends to do?
    • Except for very minor changes, is a changelog entry included and consistent with the changelog guide?
    • Are the continuous integration checks passing? (Most linter problems can be automagically fixed by commenting on this PR with pre-commit.ci autofix.)
  • Code
    • Is new/updated code understandable and consistent with the coding guide?
    • Are there ways to greatly simplify the implementation?
    • Are there any large functions that should be split up into shorter functions?
  • Tests
    • Are tests added/updated as required, and consistent with the testing guide?
    • Are the tests understandable?
    • Do the tests cover all important cases?
  • Docs
    • Are docs added/updated as required, and consistent with the doc guide?
    • Are the docs understandable?
    • Do the docs show up correctly in the preview, including Jupyter notebooks?

@rocco8773
rocco8773 requested review from a team and namurphy and removed request for a team and namurphy September 13, 2022 18:28
@rocco8773 rocco8773 added the no changelog entry needed For PRs that should not have a changelog entry label Sep 13, 2022
@StanczakDominik
StanczakDominik removed the request for review from namurphy September 13, 2022 18:29
@StanczakDominik
StanczakDominik enabled auto-merge (squash) September 13, 2022 18:30
@codecov

codecov Bot commented Sep 13, 2022

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Codecov Report

Base: 98.15% // Head: 98.15% // No change to project coverage 👍

Coverage data is based on head (36c3837) compared to base (aa63c39).
Patch has no changes to coverable lines.

Additional details and impacted files
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #1739   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   98.15%   98.15%           
=======================================
  Files          87       87           
  Lines        8091     8091           
=======================================
  Hits         7942     7942           
  Misses        149      149           

Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.

☔ View full report at Codecov.
📢 Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.

@StanczakDominik
StanczakDominik merged commit 3ddfcc4 into main Sep 13, 2022
@namurphy
namurphy deleted the revert-1351-codeowners_but_its_all_public_property branch September 13, 2022 18:45
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

no changelog entry needed For PRs that should not have a changelog entry

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants