New issue
Advanced search Search tips
Note: Color blocks (like or ) mean that a user may not be available. Tooltip shows the reason.

Issue 855287 link

Starred by 2 users

Issue metadata

Status: Untriaged
Owner: ----
Cc:
Components:
EstimatedDays: ----
NextAction: ----
OS: ----
Pri: 2
Type: Bug



Sign in to add a comment

add "eng owner" column to components in Monorail

Project Member Reported by dpranke@chromium.org, Jun 22 2018

Issue description

Can we add a "eng owner" column/field to components to Monorail?

The concept I want to capture is who is on the hook, managerially, for bugs in a given component. This, I think is probably different from the "administrators" field, those I don't actually know how all that's used and so maybe we could repurpose it.

This request shows up as part of the "owners" effort to get eng owners for every bug component and every source directory so that we can do attribution and reporting correctly.

Failing that, we can maintain a mapping outside of Monorail, but that would be kind of annoying.

Also, is there a way to get the list of components and fields exported as CSV or JSON?
 
Adding a single field might be somewhat annoying, since eng ownership is probably actually hierarchical, e.g., estaab@ for every component under Infra>Platform, but I can live w/ denormalization, it's probably not worth implementing anything fancier.
Re: getting a list of components / fields, the API already supports this: https://apis-explorer.appspot.com/apis-explorer/?base=https://monorail-prod.appspot.com/_ah/api#p/monorail/v1/monorail.components.list

Re: adding a new column, I'd been planning to use the Administrators field to do what you had proposed at some point.  Unsure if that's a 1:1 mapping to an accountable owner, though.  Concur this is a need that we should support, either via Administrators or proposed new field.
> the API already supports this

Cool, thanks.

> Unsure if that's a 1:1 mapping to an accountable owner, though

Currently as used in practice, it definitely isn't.

Also, I might take back what I said about things not needing to be hierarchical. Maintaining this might be awkward otherwise, because you might want to care whether the owner of A>B>C is Alice because Alice owns B or because Alice owns C. There are ways one can imagine working around this, depending on how much validation you want to capture.
Cc: -amineer@chromium.org
No longer on the Chrome team, e-mail me @google.com if any attention still required from me here, otherwise good luck!

Sign in to add a comment