GitLab Source Code Group, 30 Mar 2023

Previous Meeting Next Meeting

⏯

youtube image

►

From YouTube: Linking to Codeowners: 1-to-1 vs 1-to-many

Description

No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).

A

Hi there I want to talk about the issue around linking to code owners, um the file itself from a branch rules, the overview and The Details page. So, and this um question came up recently about you know: where should we link this to um so code? Owners can exist in three different files, the file itself or some other folders.

A

So there was somewhere to be done to kind of um create an alias so that the UI was just link to one and on the back end we could link to whatever file that's um being set in the Repository.

A

um Then the question came up around like on this page here: is it the same code owner files so um and as a result of that, you know how much performance is this to load this, because we would be essentially calculating the correct code owner's files to link to to from each of these areas.

A

The answer to that is that is the target Branch branches code owner. So it's so each of these would link off to its own code owners, um a path relative to its own, a branch and that's okay. um The wear gets kind of tricky for me. Is that in this example, that I mocked up for the UI I only did a specific um names of code owners, but for protective branches? We also have the idea of wild card patterns such as features slash star and in those protective branches.

A

We can also say required code order approvals. um In those scenarios we could be matching from zero to many branches, and each of those links would be specific to that Branch because we're targeting the target Branch.

A

So we can't just link off to code owners approvals from this for the wild card scenario and if we can't do it for the wild cards now in all branches and protective branches, I question whether we should even do it for the individual branches themselves, um so I created this flowchart um just to help me understand where we're trying to link code owners from and the two scenarios that I just mentioned here was within their repository settings with their financials overview and the details.

A

um The idea was that, if you clicked on code owners that would link you to the respective code owner files, like the blog view to view it had same thing from branches details, so inside the setting itself, we would link the word code owners and that would link to code owners, as I mentioned, um for the specific Branch name scenario. That makes sense and that's a one-to-one mapping, so we can link to somewhere, but in the case of a wild card or all branches or all protective branches, then we get a little bit more.

A

It gets a little bit more complicated, almost impossible in the current UI to actually display the specific link that we wanted them to link to.

A

So I think that at the moment, because of that I mean we shouldn't go ahead with this um with this link and perhaps focus our energies more on the path of linking from a file in the repository to Conor code owners, and that's something that's being scheduled in this um in this issue here and the code owners file itself doesn't have that information well. So that is something that we can introduce.

A

um There's no conflicts. There we can link through the documentation and also from the one file itself from the code owners file itself. We can link that to Branch rules so that users can view what rules have been set up for the entire repository.

A

But if we wanted to link to the specific Branch rules that is activating that code owners for that repository, I, don't think we're dead, yet until we're able to resolve the rules for the branch so that we can have a one-to-one mapping so that we can say that yes, code owners is turned on we're just repository because of these um branches that are enabled- and there could be two or three potentials- enabled for a repository that help requires code owners and we could display that.

A

um But we can't link to a specific one yeah, because um that's not possible. So maybe we need to break up this issue into multiple into a multiple issue. One is just to link to the overview and then the other um which is mentioned in the issue. That's a more advanced solution is to break it down to see.

A

Okay, these are the different branch rules that have enabled for this repository, so I think that's the way we should move forward for this I'm happy to hear your comments and feedback about this, and thank you very much.