-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2
Open
Description
The initial "unit" was "modules" in #invert and Code References was bolted on later. Code References DO support owner which overrides that of the module it's in (Was required for @Testowner).
I agree that based on where we are today, we should actually lean towards file-based ownership instead of module based as a default.
Proposed logic:
- If a
CodeReferencehas an explicit owner attached to it, use it (Nice for custom situations that override file/module based ownership methods). - After collection, if no owner is manually added, compute file-based ownership.
- If file-based ownership doesn't come back to anything, then fall back to module ownership.
Thoughts about a required owner field for CodeReference:
Right now owner :String? is nullable. We could change that to non-null, but it would require updating all collectors to have explicit awareness to add file-based ownership.
Based on this "breaking" change, and because it makes authoring Collectors more complex, I would lean towards keeping it nullable, and use the proposed logic above.
Metadata
Metadata
Assignees
Labels
No labels