feat(codeowners): Support excluding subdirectories via no-owner rules#115322
feat(codeowners): Support excluding subdirectories via no-owner rules#115322shashjar wants to merge 2 commits into
Conversation
github-actions
Bot
added
the
Scope: Backend
| event_tag = ~r"tags.[^:]+" | ||
|
|
||
| owners = _ owner+ | ||
| owners = _ owner* |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
One or more owners —> zero or more owners
![sentry[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/12637?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
cvxluo
left a comment
cvxluo
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
looks good overall. 2 questions:
- will we support this exclusion syntax for issue owners as well?
- will the frontend handle code owners with no owner properly?
| rule_a = Rule(Matcher("codeowners", "/apps/"), [Owner("team", self.team.slug)]) | ||
| rule_exclusion = Rule(Matcher("codeowners", "/apps/github"), []) | ||
| rule_c = Rule( | ||
| Matcher("codeowners", "/apps/github/special"), [Owner("team", self.team.slug)] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
very small nit: can we use a different team from the original to show that this is rule_c applying, rather than rule_a
| ([Actor(id=self.user.id, actor_type=ActorType.USER)], [issueowner_rule]), | ||
| ) | ||
|
|
||
| def test_get_issue_owners_codeowners_exclusion_rule(self) -> None: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
nit, i'm a little confused on what this test is testing for. i understand the one above is that issue owners have priority over codeowners, but is this one also ttesting that?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
the first one tests that an issue owner rule still applies even when a CODEOWNERS exclusion matches
the second one tests that the owner is correctly matched using only CODEOWNERS rules (one owner rule, one exclusion)
|
2 participants
Resolves https://linear.app/getsentry/issue/ID-243/codeowners-doesnt-support-excluding-subdirectories.
Follow-up to #115391.
The CODEOWNERS spec (see below) allows for excluding ownership of subdirectories/specified paths by writing a rule with zero owners. With CODEOWNERS synced into Sentry, we are currently ignoring these no-owner rules. This PR implements that exclusion in ownership calculation.
We will continue to skip lines where owners exist but aren't mapped into Sentry. Our "last match wins" semantics remain.