Add feature for resolving individual users in a group for assigneesSampleSize

[bbckr]

Tell us more.

Hey there 👋

For a given CODEOWNERS file that associates a Group to a dependency file that Renovate is making changes to, it would be nice to have a third configuration setting for allowing Renovate to expand the groups into individual users, so that MR assignees can be sampled from the list of individual users maintained in the group, rather than just assigning the entire group.

This is particularly helpful in large repositories where multiple Groups own different sections of the codebase, and the CODEOWNERS file only references Groups rather than individual users.

Furthermore, it allows Renovate MRs to spread the load of getting the MR reviewed and merged amongst a smaller sample size of users in the group, rather than entire group (which is subject to the bystander effect).

This is something that would be extremely helpful for our current adoption of Renovate on our much larger, shared monorepos.

Thanks for taking the time to consider this, and looking forward to hearing back on what yall think 🙏

[rarkins]

Which platform? e.g. github, gitlab, etc? Some platforms like github do the assignment automatically so Renovate has no say in it

[bbckr]

I can take a look at this @stdedos

[bbckr]

@stdedos Do you have expandCodeownersGroups enabled alongside assigneesFromCodeOwners: true? Also, are there gitlab groups declared in your CODEOWNERS file? And if so, would it be trying to add that group?

From the stacktrace, it seems that once we reach addAssignees, we could be trying to resolve the assignee Group as a User, hence why there will be no user id available. Another possibility is that we could be trying to resolve the assignee user but having trouble getting the id returned (for whatever the reason may be, need to get more familiar with the Gitlab API to see these scenarios).

This was never the case for when we reach addReviewers, since we first try to resolve the reviewer as a user and (if fails) a group. We could try to do the same check for adding Assignees, but depends if Gitlab allows adding Groups to Assignees (which I don't know off the top of my head).

Knowing how your CODEOWNERS file is setup and then the other options you have as enabled will be helpful in this case, and then I can try to dive a little more into later to see if I can get this replicated in tests.

[bbckr]

I think if expandCodeownersGroups was enabled, it may avoid this altogether, but let me know what you have configured

[stdedos]

Sadly, the project-in-question was discontinued - so there will be no more investigation 😕

Let's say that the expandCodeownersGroups missing might have explained the behavior I was seeing

[stdedos]

On a ... small tangent from the ``.

"Somehow", I don't see the setting "being offered as a completion" in IDEA

... but it seems to exist on the schema alright (https://docs.renovatebot.com/renovate-schema.json)

Others are offered though:

Any "off the top of someone's head" ideas? 😕

[uberflip-jbooth]

I would like to use expandCodeOwnersGroups in Github. Currently we have some PRs that can auto-merge but get "stuck" and it would be nice to automatically assign one of the users from a CODEOWNERS group to make sure someone goes and gets it unstuck.