New codeowners file

[RachalCassity]

Note: Delete the description statements, complete each step. None are optional, but can be justified as to why they cannot be completed as written. Provide known gaps to testing that may raise the risk of merging to production.

Summary

• (Summarize the changes that have been made to the platform)
• (If bug, how to reproduce)
• (What is the solution, why is this the solution)
• (Which team do you work for, does your team own the maintainence of this component?)
• (If using a flipper, what is the end date of the flipper being required/success criteria being targeted)

Related issue(s)

• department-of-veterans-affairs/va.gov-team#0000
• Link to ticket created in va.gov-team repo
• Link to previous change of the code/bug (if applicable)
• Link to epic if not included in ticket

Testing done

• Describe what the old behavior was prior to the change
• Describe the steps required to verify your changes are working as expected. Exclusively stating 'Specs run' is NOT acceptable as appropriate testing
• Describe the tests completed and the results

Screenshots

Note: Optional

What areas of the site does it impact?

(Describe what parts of the site are impacted andifcode touched other areas)

Acceptance criteria

• I fixed|updated|added unit tests and integration tests for each feature (if applicable).
• No error nor warning in the console.
• Events are being sent to the appropriate logging solution
• Documentation has been updated (link to documentation)
• No sensitive information (i.e. PII/credentials/internal URLs/etc.) is captured in logging, hardcoded, or specs
• Feature/bug has a monitor built into Datadog or Grafana (if applicable)
• If app impacted requires authentication, did you login to a local build and verify all authenticated routes work as expected
• I added a screenshot of the developed feature

Requested Feedback

(OPTIONAL)What should the reviewers know in addition to the above. Is there anything specific you wish the reviewer to assist with. Do you have any concerns with this PR, why?

[github-actions]

	2 Errors
🚫	This PR changes 4646 LoC (not counting whitespace/newlines). In order to ensure each PR receives the proper attention it deserves, those exceeding 500 will not be reviewed, nor will they be allowed to merge. Please break this PR up into smaller ones. If you have reason to believe that this PR should be granted an exception, please see the Submitting pull requests for approval - FAQ. File Summary Files .github/CODEOWNERS (+3105/-1541) Note: We exclude files matching the following when considering PR size: *.csv, *.json, *.tsv, *.txt, Gemfile.lock, app/swagger, modules/mobile/docs, spec/fixtures/, spec/support/vcr_cassettes/, modules/mobile/spec/support/vcr_cassettes/, db/seeds, modules/vaos/app/docs, modules/meb_api/app/docs, modules/appeals_api/app/swagger/ Big PRs are difficult to review, often become stale, and cause delays.
🚫	New entry on line 1693 of CODEOWNERS does not include @department-of-veterans-affairs/backend-review-group. Please add @department-of-veterans-affairs/backend-review-group to the entry

Generated by 🚫 Danger