Open devth opened 1 year ago
👋🏻 Would you be open to a PR for this?
Hi @devth
I like the idea that you posted, and PR is always welcome 👍 I will do my best to do the review ASAP 👍
Thanks! I'll see when I get to it.
Do you think this behavior should be configurable, or always on?
I try to maintain a behavior where all checks are optional, so each one can always enable what they really need to 👍
Description
If I have a file
foo/bar.go
explicitly covered by CODEOWNERS, e.g.and I open a PR which deletes
foo/bar.go
, I'd likecodeowners-validator
to fail with a message saying something like:Reasons
You could argue that a CODEOWNERS file that contains rules for non-existent files is invalid. An error like above (maybe it's configurable) would prevent CODEOWNERS files from getting stale.