-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 111
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
[FEATURE] Periodically validate all CODEOWNERS files under the AsyncAPI organization #1322
Comments
Welcome to AsyncAPI. Thanks a lot for reporting your first issue. Please check out our contributors guide and the instructions about a basic recommended setup useful for opening a pull request. |
thanks for the issue the problem is that even if we get a report that there are errors, we need to find someone who has time to fix it. wouldn't it be better to have a workflow in each repo that is dedicated to codeowners validation? and it is triggered only if codeowners file is edited. This way we block errors on PR level which I think is best |
In PRs, this is less useful. You create a PR with a change that already makes sense, and a reviewer checks it too. An extra layer of protection is nice but not essential. The real problem is with CODEOWNERS files that remain on the main branch without any changes. They become easily outdated. A periodic check can help in this situation. For example:
If you want to do this only via PR checks, you will need to wait for a PR to be created to trigger a workflow that checks the CODEOWNERS file. First, such PRs are not that frequent. Second, if a contributor simply wants to add someone as a new codeowner, they also need to deal with issues unrelated to their changes.
Maybe the first version should already come with a simple solution to fix related issues and be executed only once per month. It could be via Slack or CLI in terminal, sth like: Screen.Recording.2024-07-29.at.20.06.04.movI just think that it's hard to automate it and a human is required in the flow to approve or adjust fixes and decide whether to:
On the other hand, outdated CODEOWNERS should be rare, so the question is whether it makes sense to simplify it so much 🤔 |
ok, so my assumption was your rather suggesting validation of codeowners from technical point of view, if data there is accurate, etc but you mean also issues when someone changed name or someone was not invite or did not accept invite to the repo yeah, some monthly report could be useful |
This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity 😴 It will be closed in 120 days if no further activity occurs. To unstale this issue, add a comment with a detailed explanation. There can be many reasons why some specific issue has no activity. The most probable cause is lack of time, not lack of interest. AsyncAPI Initiative is a Linux Foundation project not owned by a single for-profit company. It is a community-driven initiative ruled under open governance model. Let us figure out together how to push this issue forward. Connect with us through one of many communication channels we established here. Thank you for your patience ❤️ |
Why do we need this improvement?
While working on #1269, I noticed such problems related to the CODEOWNERS files under the AsyncAPI organization:
damaru-inc
useerIssues report generate on 24.07.2024
Found 11 invalid CODEOWNERS files.
Click to see a detailed report
Tip
To get a fresh report run:
How will this change help?
Without that change, the
MAINTAINERS.yaml
file may still reflect an incorrect state, as the related CODEOWNERS file could be outdated, invalid, or even missing.How could it be implemented/designed?
Start Minimal
Improvements for Later
Consider using more advanced validators to check for:
Consider auto-fixing CODEOWNERS files. For example, when a user is removed from the organization, update the related CODEOWNERS files to reflect that change.
🚧 Breaking changes
No
👀 Have you checked for similar open issues?
🏢 Have you read the Contributing Guidelines?
Are you willing to work on this issue?
Yes I am willing to submit a PR!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: