Skip to content

File-Based Ownership #40

Description

@handstandsam

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 CodeReference has 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.

Activity

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    No labels
    No labels

    Type

    No type

    Projects

    No projects

      Milestone

      No milestone

      Relationships

      None yet

      Development

      No branches or pull requests

      Issue actions