feat: add reviewers parameter to create_pull_request #814
+104
−0
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
- Add reviewers parameter to create_pull_request tool matching update_pull_request - Request reviewers after PR creation using GitHub API - Refresh PR data after adding reviewers to return complete information - Add comprehensive test coverage for the new parameter 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.ai/code) Co-Authored-By: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
Sorry, something went wrong.
Gowza68
approved these changes
Aug 4, 2025
…equest - Add reviewers parameter documentation to match the implementation - Maintain alphabetical order of parameters in the list 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.ai/code) Co-Authored-By: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
- Change array[string] to string[] to match existing documentation style - Consistent with other array parameters in the README 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.ai/code) Co-Authored-By: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pull Request Overview
This PR adds support for specifying reviewers when creating a pull request, bringing feature parity with the existing update_pull_request functionality.
- Add
reviewersparameter tocreate_pull_requesttool for requesting reviews upon PR creation - Implement reviewer request flow that calls GitHub's RequestReviewers API after PR creation
- Add comprehensive test coverage for the new parameter functionality
Reviewed Changes
Copilot reviewed 4 out of 4 changed files in this pull request and generated 2 comments.
| File | Description |
|---|---|
| pkg/github/pullrequests.go | Adds reviewers parameter and implements reviewer request logic after PR creation |
| pkg/github/pullrequests_test.go | Adds test coverage for PR creation with reviewers functionality |
| pkg/github/toolsnaps/create_pull_request.snap | Updates tool schema snapshot to include reviewers parameter |
| README.md | Documents the new reviewers parameter in the tool documentation |
| if reviewResp.StatusCode != http.StatusCreated && reviewResp.StatusCode != http.StatusOK { | ||
| body, err := io.ReadAll(reviewResp.Body) | ||
| if err != nil { | ||
| return nil, fmt.Errorf("failed to read response body: %w", err) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This return statement returns a nil *mcp.CallToolResult and an error, which is inconsistent with the function signature that expects (*mcp.CallToolResult, error). This should return an mcp.NewToolResultError instead of returning nil and an error.
Suggested change
| return nil, fmt.Errorf("failed to read response body: %w", err) | |
| return mcp.NewToolResultError(fmt.Sprintf("failed to read response body: %v", err)), nil |
Copilot uses AI. Check for mistakes.
| err, | ||
| ), nil | ||
| } | ||
| defer func() { _ = resp.Body.Close() }() |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The defer statement for closing resp.Body should include a nil check for resp to avoid potential panics. This should be: defer func() { if resp != nil && resp.Body != nil { _ = resp.Body.Close() } }()
Suggested change
| defer func() { _ = resp.Body.Close() }() | |
| defer func() { | |
| if resp != nil && resp.Body != nil { | |
| _ = resp.Body.Close() | |
| } | |
| }() |
Copilot uses AI. Check for mistakes.
Gowza68
approved these changes
Aug 4, 2025
|
4 Ağu 2025 Pzt 03:58 tarihinde Yuku Kotani ***@***.***> şunu
yazdı:
… ***@***.**** commented on this pull request.
------------------------------
In pkg/github/pullrequests.go
<#814 (comment)>
:
> + return ghErrors.NewGitHubAPIErrorResponse(ctx,
+ "failed to request reviewers",
+ reviewResp,
+ err,
+ ), nil
+ }
+ defer func() {
+ if reviewResp != nil && reviewResp.Body != nil {
+ _ = reviewResp.Body.Close()
+ }
+ }()
+
+ if reviewResp.StatusCode != http.StatusCreated && reviewResp.StatusCode != http.StatusOK {
+ body, err := io.ReadAll(reviewResp.Body)
+ if err != nil {
+ return nil, fmt.Errorf("failed to read response body: %w", err)
@copilot <https://gh.io/copilot-coding-agent-docs> It seems that the
other functions also use this pattern when failing to read response body
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#814 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/BOESNUKW5FUXKSBI5SSINLD3L2V33AVCNFSM6AAAAACDAUBIF2VHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43YUDVNRWFEZLROVSXG5CSMV3GSZLXHMZTAOBSGQ2DSMRZGY>
.
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message
ID: ***@***.***>
|
|
4 Ağu 2025 Pzt 04:17 tarihinde Ali Gülege ***@***.***> şunu
yazdı:
…
4 Ağu 2025 Pzt 03:58 tarihinde Yuku Kotani ***@***.***>
şunu yazdı:
> ***@***.**** commented on this pull request.
> ------------------------------
>
> In pkg/github/pullrequests.go
> <#814 (comment)>
> :
>
> > + return ghErrors.NewGitHubAPIErrorResponse(ctx,
> + "failed to request reviewers",
> + reviewResp,
> + err,
> + ), nil
> + }
> + defer func() {
> + if reviewResp != nil && reviewResp.Body != nil {
> + _ = reviewResp.Body.Close()
> + }
> + }()
> +
> + if reviewResp.StatusCode != http.StatusCreated && reviewResp.StatusCode != http.StatusOK {
> + body, err := io.ReadAll(reviewResp.Body)
> + if err != nil {
> + return nil, fmt.Errorf("failed to read response body: %w", err)
>
> @copilot <https://gh.io/copilot-coding-agent-docs> It seems that the
> other functions also use this pattern when failing to read response body
>
> —
> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
> <#814 (comment)>,
> or unsubscribe
> <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/BOESNUKW5FUXKSBI5SSINLD3L2V33AVCNFSM6AAAAACDAUBIF2VHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43YUDVNRWFEZLROVSXG5CSMV3GSZLXHMZTAOBSGQ2DSMRZGY>
> .
> You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message
> ID: ***@***.***>
>
|
|
wtf is this spam |
|
4 Ağu 2025 Pzt 04:35 tarihinde Yuku Kotani ***@***.***> şunu
yazdı:
… *yukukotani* left a comment (github/github-mcp-server#814)
<#814 (comment)>
wtf is this spam
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#814 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/BOESNUIAT5VZRUTPKAIQGYD3L22HFAVCNFSM6AAAAACDAUBIF2VHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZTCNBYHA4DAOJXHE>
.
You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
|
4 Ağu 2025 Pzt 04:50 tarihinde Ali Gülege ***@***.***> şunu
yazdı:
…
4 Ağu 2025 Pzt 04:35 tarihinde Yuku Kotani ***@***.***>
şunu yazdı:
> *yukukotani* left a comment (github/github-mcp-server#814)
> <#814 (comment)>
>
> wtf is this spam
>
> —
> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
> <#814 (comment)>,
> or unsubscribe
> <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/BOESNUIAT5VZRUTPKAIQGYD3L22HFAVCNFSM6AAAAACDAUBIF2VHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZTCNBYHA4DAOJXHE>
> .
> You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID:
> ***@***.***>
>
|
Gowza68
approved these changes
Aug 4, 2025
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Summary
This PR adds support for specifying reviewers when creating a pull request, bringing feature parity with the
update_pull_requesttool which already supports this functionality.Changes
reviewersparameter tocreate_pull_requesttoolImplementation Details
The implementation follows the same pattern as
update_pull_request:reviewersparameterRequestReviewersAPI if reviewers are specifiedTesting
Related
This brings consistency with PR #285 which added reviewers parameter to
update_pull_request.🤖 Generated with Claude Code