chore: add info about who is elected to board 2025#1976
chore: add info about who is elected to board 2025#1976asyncapi-bot merged 1 commit intoasyncapi:masterfrom
Conversation
derberg
requested review from
asyncapi-bot-eve,
quetzalliwrites and
thulieblack
as code owners
derberg
changed the title
WalkthroughThis update introduces the Changes
Possibly related PRs
Suggested labels
Suggested reviewers
Poem
Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out. 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
SupportNeed help? Create a ticket on our support page for assistance with any issues or questions. 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)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 2
♻️ Duplicate comments (1)
MAINTAINERS.yaml (1)
562-565: Duplicate schema issue for second maintainerSame problem here – this flag blocks the whole file from validating, so the repo cannot be merged while CI is red. Fix or revert as described above.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
AMBASSADORS_MEMBERS.yaml(1 hunks)MAINTAINERS.yaml(2 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 GitHub Actions: Validating the list of maintainers
MAINTAINERS.yaml
[error] 1-1: Validation of maintainers file failed with schema validation errors.
| isTscMember: true | ||
| isBoardMember: true | ||
| contributions: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
isBoardMember violates the current ambassadors schema
No other ambassador entry exposes this flag and the CI does not validate ambassadors, so we have no evidence the schema actually supports it. Consider either
a) extending the ambassadors JSON-schema first, or
b) storing board membership in a separate, already-validated list.
Until the schema is updated this extra field is just silent technical debt that can break downstream consumers expecting a strict schema.
🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
In AMBASSADORS_MEMBERS.yaml around lines 122 to 124, the field isBoardMember is
not supported by the current ambassadors schema and is not validated by CI,
risking schema violations. To fix this, either extend the ambassadors
JSON-schema to include isBoardMember before adding this field, or remove
isBoardMember from this file and instead track board membership in a separate,
schema-validated list to maintain strict schema compliance.
| linkedin: fmvilas | ||
| isTscMember: true | ||
| isBoardMember: true | ||
| repos: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Schema-breaking field causes CI failure
GitHub Actions reports “Validation of maintainers file failed”.
The only new key is isBoardMember: true, so the maintainers schema clearly does not recognise it.
Either update the schema (preferred) or drop the key to restore the pipeline:
- isBoardMember: true📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| linkedin: fmvilas | |
| isTscMember: true | |
| isBoardMember: true | |
| repos: | |
| linkedin: fmvilas | |
| isTscMember: true | |
| repos: |
🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
In MAINTAINERS.yaml around lines 123 to 126, the new field `isBoardMember: true`
is causing CI validation failures because it is not recognized by the current
maintainers schema. To fix this, either update the maintainers schema to include
the `isBoardMember` field or remove the `isBoardMember` key from this file to
restore CI pipeline functionality.
|
/rtm |
3 participants
Summary by CodeRabbit