[ISSUE #1994]🔨Update Github workflow action

[mxsm]

Which Issue(s) This PR Fixes(Closes)

Fixes #1994

Brief Description

How Did You Test This Change?

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Chores
  • Updated GitHub reviewers configuration
  • Added a new bot username to default reviewers
  • Reduced number of random reviewers from 3 to 2
  • Removed specific bot usernames from repository owners group

[coderabbitai]

Walkthrough

The pull request modifies the .github/reviewers.yml configuration file. The changes involve adding the rocketmq-rust-bot to the default reviewers list while removing RocketmqRustBot and rocketmq-rust-bot from the repository owners group. The number of reviewers is reduced from 3 to 2, streamlining the review process for the project.

Changes

File	Change Summary
.github/reviewers.yml	- Added rocketmq-rust-bot to default reviewers - Removed RocketmqRustBot and rocketmq-rust-bot from repository owners group - Reduced number_of_reviewers from 3 to 2

Assessment against linked issues

Objective	Addressed	Explanation
Update Github workflow action [#1994]	✅

Possibly related issues

• [Doc📝] Update Github actions CI #1176: [Doc📝] Update Github actions CI - Similar scope of workflow configuration updates

Suggested labels

enhancement, approved, auto merge, ready to review, waiting-review

Suggested reviewers

• TeslaRustor
• SpaceXCN
• rocketmq-rust-bot

Poem

🐰 Reviewers dance, a config ballet
Bots come and go, in GitHub's array
Two reviewers now, instead of three
A streamlined path to harmony
Code review's rhythm, light and free! 🚀

---

📜 Recent review details

Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 280c5d7 and f665b7f.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• .github/reviewers.yml (2 hunks)

🔇 Additional comments (2)

.github/reviewers.yml (2)

5-5: Verify bot configuration to prevent duplicate assignments

The bot is listed in default reviewers while the group repository-owners is also included. This might lead to duplicate reviewer assignments if the bot is still part of the repository-owners group.

Run the following script to check the current repository collaborators and their roles:

✅ Verification successful

Let me verify the repository-owners group membership to ensure there's no duplicate assignment.

---

No duplicate reviewer assignments detected

Based on the verification:

1. The bot (rocketmq-rust-bot) is only listed in the default reviewers section
2. The bot is not part of the repository-owners group, which only contains mxsm, TeslaRustor, and SpaceXCN
3. The bot has appropriate permissions (pull, push, triage) for review tasks
4. Group assignment is disabled (enable_group_assignment: false), preventing any potential group-based conflicts

🏁 Scripts executed

The following scripts were executed for the analysis:

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify bot's repository role and permissions
gh api \
  -H "Accept: application/vnd.github+json" \
  repos/mxsm/rocketmq-rust/collaborators \
  --jq '.[] | select(.login | contains("bot")) | {login: .login, role: .role, permissions: .permissions}'

Length of output: 319

---

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Check the content of reviewers.yml to verify repository-owners group
cat .github/reviewers.yml

Length of output: 1116

---

37-37: Verify alignment with project review guidelines

Reducing the number of required reviewers from 3 to 2 could impact code quality assurance. Please ensure this change aligns with the project's review guidelines and quality standards.

Run the following script to check for documented review requirements:

✅ Verification successful

Reducing reviewers to 2 appears reasonable for this project

Based on the repository's documentation and configuration:

1. The project follows standard Rust development practices with basic contribution guidelines.
2. The CONTRIBUTING.md file doesn't specify a minimum number of required reviewers.
3. The project is in active development but doesn't mandate strict review requirements.
4. Two reviewers is a common practice that balances code quality with development velocity.

🏁 Scripts executed

The following scripts were executed for the analysis:

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check for documented review requirements in project guidelines
echo "Checking documentation for review requirements..."
fd -t f -e md -e txt . | xargs rg -i "review|approvals? required"

echo "Checking for existing PR merge requirements..."
gh api \
  -H "Accept: application/vnd.github+json" \
  repos/mxsm/rocketmq-rust/branches/main/protection \
  --jq '.required_pull_request_reviews'

Length of output: 636

---

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Let's check for any documentation about code review process or guidelines
echo "Checking documentation files..."
fd -t f "README|CONTRIBUTING|DEVELOPMENT|GUIDELINES|PROCESS" . | xargs cat

# Also check for any PR or review related configuration files
echo -e "\nChecking configuration files..."
fd -t f "^\.github" . | xargs cat

Length of output: 33354

---

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Let's check .github directory with hidden files flag
echo "Checking .github configuration files..."
fd -H -t f "^\.github" . | xargs cat

# Also check for any documentation about code review process in markdown files
echo -e "\nChecking documentation about review process..."
fd -t f -e md . | xargs rg -i "review|pull request|pr"

Length of output: 8667

---

Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media?

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

🪧 Tips

Chat

There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:

• Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by CodeRabbit. Example:
  • I pushed a fix in commit <commit_id>, please review it.
  • Generate unit testing code for this file.
  • Open a follow-up GitHub issue for this discussion.
• Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab): Tag @coderabbitai in a new review comment at the desired location with your query. Examples:
  • @coderabbitai generate unit testing code for this file.
  • @coderabbitai modularize this function.
• PR comments: Tag @coderabbitai in a new PR comment to ask questions about the PR branch. For the best results, please provide a very specific query, as very limited context is provided in this mode. Examples:
  • @coderabbitai gather interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table. Additionally, render a pie chart showing the language distribution in the codebase.
  • @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and generate unit testing code.
  • @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.
  • @coderabbitai help me debug CodeRabbit configuration file.

Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments.

CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)

• @coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
• @coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
• @coderabbitai review to trigger an incremental review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
• @coderabbitai full review to do a full review from scratch and review all the files again.
• @coderabbitai summary to regenerate the summary of the PR.
• @coderabbitai generate docstrings to generate docstrings for this PR. (Beta)
• @coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
• @coderabbitai configuration to show the current CodeRabbit configuration for the repository.
• @coderabbitai help to get help.

Other keywords and placeholders

• Add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.
• Add @coderabbitai summary to generate the high-level summary at a specific location in the PR description.
• Add @coderabbitai anywhere in the PR title to generate the title automatically.

Documentation and Community

• Visit our Documentation for detailed information on how to use CodeRabbit.
• Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.
• Follow us on X/Twitter for updates and announcements.

[rocketmq-rust-bot]

🔊@mxsm 🚀Thanks for your contribution🎉！

💡CodeRabbit(AI) will review your code first🔥！

Note

🚨The code review suggestions from CodeRabbit are to be used as a reference only, and the PR submitter can decide whether to make changes based on their own judgment. Ultimately, the project management personnel will conduct the final code review💥.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 28.29%. Comparing base (280c5d7) to head (f665b7f).
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #1995   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   28.29%   28.29%           
=======================================
  Files         487      487           
  Lines       68438    68438           
=======================================
  Hits        19363    19363           
  Misses      49075    49075           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.