Preview Feedback: Require review from specific team rule #178776
Replies: 12 comments 17 replies
-
|
Great in theory, but it doesn't seem negation works right now, when it says it uses the same syntax as .gitignore files! I.e. this does not work: PRs are still blocked + require specific approval if a negated/allowed file is edited. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I haven't had the chance to try this feature yet, since it's still in preview, and I would need to ask my organization manager to enable it. Before asking them, I have a question though. It seems unclear from the announcement what the exact behaviour is for pull requests. Is it similar to how CODEOWNERS work? Specifically I'm curious if this feature addresses https://github.com/orgs/community/discussions/178776. We would really like to be able to assign/require a team as reviewer, so that the team is automatically added to any PR as specified by the ruleset, but keep the team there as individual members add reviews to the PR. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
@patrick-knight should this be supported in the REST API? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Great feature, our team is migrating from Azure DevOps and this covers a gap that codeowners didn't quite fill. One issue is that for repository rulesets, I am only able to setup teams that have been given direct access to the repository. Teams with organization access to all repositories are not selectable. This limitation isn't there for rulesets created at the organization level. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Hey @patrick-knight - as you can see I've been interested in this for quite a while. After doing some testing, I think the current preview has potential but has some limitations compared to Specifically there are some cases where we require an approval for some paths for either team A or team B in CODEOWNERS Also the Extending on this - the functionality is still locked within |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
There doesn't seem to be any UI on the PR itself showing that this review is needed. Is this expected behaviour, or is my ruleset not being applied appropriately? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
This comment was marked as spam.
This comment was marked as spam.
-
|
What do we need to do to be able to test this preview feature in our organization or repo? I am not seeing it available to enable/disable in my account under the "Feature preview dialog," nor do I see I way to request access to a technical preview.... I am a repo admin, but not an org admin if that matters. We very much are looking forward to this feature. Thanks! |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
@patrick-knight While not having the same functionality, we could control some exclusion logic with the order of patterns in CODEOWNERS, is that still true? Here is my scenario: In CODEOWNERS I just had Team2 and Team3 at the top with the "*": |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Hi all :-) |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Love this feature. We've been looking for a way to decouple ownership from review required. I would like to humbly request an increase to the limit of 15 filter patterns per required reviewer. We're working with a pretty large monorepo and require quite granular rules. At the moment the highest number of patterns is 26 for one required reviewer but that may increase in the future. Thanks for the amazing work on this feature. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Subteams don't show up on the list of teams, which largely defeats the utility for us. If we have a team |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.




Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
-
Required review by specific teams now available as a preview feature in rulesets
Take control of your protected branches! You can now use rulesets to require approvals from specific teams for changes to specific files and folders.
What's new
Rulesets vs. CODEOWNERS
While CODEOWNERS is great for defining ownership, this new ruleset focuses on policy enforcement. It makes it simple to require specific approvals on sensitive branches and critical code paths, all while scaling seamlessly across your enterprise.
This new rule is designed to augment CODEOWNER files but not replace them. The CODEOWNERS files will continue to be the way to manage ownership, support individuals as reviewers, and request reviews even if not required.
🌟 Leave a comment!
What do you think? Join the discussion and leave your feedback below!
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions