TrueCloudLab/frostfs-testcases
25
0
Fork 21
Code Issues 2 Pull requests 2 Releases Activity Actions

Refine CODEOWNERS settings #339

Open
potyarkin wants to merge 1 commit from potyarkin/frostfs-testcases:feature/codeowners into master
pull from: potyarkin/frostfs-testcases:feature/codeowners
merge into: TrueCloudLab:master
Conversation 0 Commits 1 Files changed 1 +3 -1
potyarkin commented 2024-12-10 13:11:49 +00:00
Member
Copy link

CODEOWNERS file specifies reviewers which will be automatically added to each PR.

Forgejo uses a bespoke CODEOWNERS parser. It differs from most other tools:

  • Filepaths are matched using Golang regex library instead of simple fileglobs
  • All matching lines are active instead of only the first one
  • There is no support for defining ad-hoc groups, only org teams are supported (@TrueCloudLab/team-name)

This PR is a part of multirepo cleanup effort: TrueCloudLab/frostfs-infra#90

CODEOWNERS file specifies reviewers which will be automatically added to each PR. Forgejo uses a bespoke CODEOWNERS parser. It differs from most other tools: - Filepaths are matched using Golang regex library instead of simple fileglobs - All matching lines are active instead of only the first one - There is no support for defining ad-hoc groups, only org teams are supported (@TrueCloudLab/team-name) This PR is a part of multirepo cleanup effort: https://git.frostfs.info/TrueCloudLab/frostfs-infra/issues/90
potyarkin added 1 commit 2024-12-10 13:11:49 +00:00
[#] Refine CODEOWNERS settings
Some checks failed
DCO check / DCO (pull_request) Failing after 3m13s
Details
7165b04545 
Signed-off-by: Vitaliy Potyarkin <v.potyarkin@yadro.com>
potyarkin requested review from abereziny 2024-12-10 13:11:49 +00:00
potyarkin requested review from d.zayakin 2024-12-10 13:11:49 +00:00
potyarkin requested review from anikeev-yadro 2024-12-10 13:11:49 +00:00
potyarkin requested review from anurindm 2024-12-10 13:11:49 +00:00
potyarkin requested review from ylukoyan 2024-12-10 13:11:49 +00:00
potyarkin requested review from i.niyazov 2024-12-10 13:11:49 +00:00
potyarkin requested review from JuliaKovshova 2024-12-10 13:11:49 +00:00
potyarkin force-pushed feature/codeowners from 7165b04545 to d882356a10 2024-12-10 13:20:31 +00:00 Compare
abereziny requested changes 2024-12-11 16:16:50 +00:00
Dismissed
CODEOWNERS
@ -1 +1,3 @@
* @JuliaKovshova @abereziny @d.zayakin @anikeev-yadro @anurindm @ylukoyan @i.niyazov
.* @TrueCloudLab/qa-committers
.forgejo/.* @potyarkin
Makefile @potyarkin
abereziny commented 2024-12-11 16:16:49 +00:00
Member
Copy link

I wouldn't agree with that line.
Makefile contains tests scripts which used in testing platform, so it's also @TrueCloudLab/qa-committers

I wouldn't agree with that line. Makefile contains tests scripts which used in testing platform, so it's also @TrueCloudLab/qa-committers
potyarkin commented 2024-12-12 07:24:23 +00:00
Author
Member
Copy link

That's the quirk of Forgejo CODEOWNERS parser: it creates review requests for ALL matching lines, not just for the last one. So for Makefile changes reviewers will be both qa-commiters and me.

That's the quirk of Forgejo CODEOWNERS parser: it creates review requests for ALL matching lines, not just for the last one. So for Makefile changes reviewers will be both qa-commiters and me.
abereziny commented 2024-12-12 14:54:59 +00:00
Member
Copy link

That's the quirk of Forgejo CODEOWNERS parser: it creates review requests for ALL matching lines, not just for the last one. So for Makefile changes reviewers will be both qa-commiters and me.

Does that means that without your approval we can't proceed with changes in Makefile?

> That's the quirk of Forgejo CODEOWNERS parser: it creates review requests for ALL matching lines, not just for the last one. So for Makefile changes reviewers will be both qa-commiters and me. Does that means that without your approval we can't proceed with changes in Makefile?
potyarkin commented 2024-12-12 15:01:30 +00:00
Author
Member
Copy link

CODEOWNERS just means that a review request will be sent to me.

But in this repo branch protection rules also "Block merge on official review requests" so yes, technically a PR can not proceed without my approval. In reality, anyone authorized to merge the PR can remove an outstanding review request and merge it anyways (wastebin button in screenshot below). This action will be logged but Forgejo will not interfere in any way.

image

CODEOWNERS just means that a review request will be sent to me. But in this repo branch protection rules also "Block merge on official review requests" so yes, technically a PR can not proceed without my approval. In reality, anyone authorized to merge the PR can remove an outstanding review request and merge it anyways (wastebin button in screenshot below). This action will be logged but Forgejo will not interfere in any way. ![image](/attachments/691eca8d-6735-4b64-97ee-1152724cc74d)
image.png
5.6 KiB
abereziny marked this conversation as resolved
abereziny approved these changes 2024-12-13 08:09:50 +00:00
d.zayakin approved these changes 2024-12-17 10:48:41 +00:00
abereziny removed review request for anikeev-yadro 2024-12-17 10:54:38 +00:00
abereziny removed review request for anurindm 2024-12-17 10:54:43 +00:00
abereziny removed review request for ylukoyan 2024-12-17 10:54:52 +00:00
abereziny removed review request for i.niyazov 2024-12-17 10:54:59 +00:00
abereziny removed review request for JuliaKovshova 2024-12-17 10:55:06 +00:00
All checks were successful
DCO check / DCO (pull_request) Successful in 6m59s
Required
Details
This pull request can be merged automatically.
This branch is out-of-date with the base branch
You are not authorized to merge this pull request.
View command line instructions

Checkout

From your project repository, check out a new branch and test the changes.
git fetch -u feature/codeowners:potyarkin-feature/codeowners
git checkout potyarkin-feature/codeowners
Sign in to join this conversation.
Reviewers
No reviewers
abereziny
d.zayakin
Labels
Clear labels   
P0

Highest

  
P1

High

  
P2

Medium

  
P3

Low

  
good first issue

Good for newcomers

  
Infrastructure

Infrastructure, Automation, CI/CD or DevOps related stuff

  
blocked

The issue or PR is blocked by something

  
bug

Something is not working

  
config

Configuration format update or breaking change

  
discussion

Talking about something in order to reach a decision or to exchange ideas

  
documentation

Documentation related

  
duplicate

This issue or pull request already exists

  
enhancement

New feature

  
go

Language features adoption

  
help wanted

Extra attention is needed

  
internal

   
invalid

Something is wrong

  
kludge

This is a kludge and we know it

  
observability

Related to metrics, tracing and logs

  
perfomance

Perfomance related

  
question

More information is needed

  
refactoring

Refactoring

  
wontfix

This won't be fixed

No labels
P0
P1
P2
P3
good first issue
Infrastructure
blocked
bug
config
discussion
documentation
duplicate
enhancement
go
help wanted
internal
invalid
kludge
observability
perfomance
question
refactoring
wontfix
Milestone
Clear milestone
No items
No milestone
Projects
Clear projects
No items
No project
Assignees
Clear assignees
No assignees
3 participants
Notifications
Due date
The due date is invalid or out of range. Please use the format "yyyy-mm-dd".

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: TrueCloudLab/frostfs-testcases#339
No description provided.
Delete branch "potyarkin/frostfs-testcases:feature/codeowners"

Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?