Closed lwasser closed 1 month ago
my bad, i saw that the previous style was changed and i just followed the list format, i can do this rn
@sneakers-the-rat we will need to update the workflow to properly parse reviewers in both formats -- the legacy format
we do want to support that format of reviewers: @ reviewer1, @ reviewr2, etc
because that will allow us to more easily integrate the bot! But our pydantic model right now only supports reviewer_1 and reviewer_2. so i think we need a validator that parses both reviewer_x and reviewers fields. But also when it grabs the data i suspect we need to fix something there as well.
no apologies needed on your end!! i just made the template change a while ago and forgot i needed to open an issue and update things here. i'm going to merge #172 because that will fix the blank packages page issue!! 😆 which is a very special new "feature".
dw i'm refactoring the parser so this is eaasier (and ya handles the multiple formats and gives us room to grow)
thank you so so much. refactor away.
from @pllim
"About that error, looks like https://github.com/pyOpenSci/software-submission/issues/152 (automata) has format of "Reviewers: X, Y, Z" but other issues have "Reviewer 1: X" followed by "Reviewer 2: Y""
We have made a few updates to our review template.
when this is addressed we can then close #77 as well.