Skip to content

Check for and extract name when publish artifact definition#162

Closed
chrisghill wants to merge 1 commit into
mainfrom
chris/bugfix/publish-art-def-look-for-name
Closed

Check for and extract name when publish artifact definition#162
chrisghill wants to merge 1 commit into
mainfrom
chris/bugfix/publish-art-def-look-for-name

Conversation

@chrisghill
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@chrisghill chrisghill commented Jun 21, 2025

We need to properly extract the name field to publish and artifact definition.

@chrisghill chrisghill requested a review from coryodaniel as a code owner June 21, 2025 04:31
@chrisghill chrisghill requested review from a team and Copilot June 21, 2025 04:31
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Pull Request Overview

This PR updates the extraction logic for the artifact definition to properly retrieve the name field from a nested "$md" block and updates the CODEOWNERS file.

  • Update extraction logic to check for the "$md" block and its "name" field.
  • Revise CODEOWNERS to update code ownership.

Reviewed Changes

Copilot reviewed 2 out of 2 changed files in this pull request and generated 1 comment.

File Description
cmd/definition.go Refactored the extraction of the "name" field from a nested "$md" block.
.github/CODEOWNERS Updated the owners list to reflect new code ownership.

Comment thread cmd/definition.go
return fmt.Errorf("error initializing massdriver client: %w", mdClientErr)
}

// TODO: All the logic from here to Publish should be moved into the commands package
Copy link

Copilot AI Jun 21, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

[nitpick] Consider addressing this TODO by refactoring the logic into the commands package to improve modularity and maintainability.

Copilot uses AI. Check for mistakes.
@chrisghill
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

Closing this, we should do this via schema validation instead.

@chrisghill chrisghill closed this Jun 22, 2025
@chrisghill chrisghill removed the request for review from coryodaniel June 22, 2025 04:23
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants