[FTR][No Missing Owners for Test Files] Enable Code Owners Check on PR's

[wayneseymour]

Summary

Enable another check on PR CI, such that if a PR adds a test file that does not have an owner, the author is notified.

In support of: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yYg-9qJGpPrGpiN2c0ZhDaBoFy9uBBbWp_z0x0Hw6Mw/edit#heading=h.t65bsv62ker1

Goals - Better Reporting (team based, better insights, how many tests, perf, etc)

1. Code Owners for all FTR tests
2. Ping test owners on MKI failures (already happening, but limited without complete ownership declarations)

FYI

This is a best effort option to find the correct code owners.
It may not be perfect at the outset.

Iteration 1 - Everything should have an owner

• [FTR][Ownership] Assign all test files #194551
• [FTR][Ownership] Assign all ES Archives #194540
• [FTR][Ownership] Assign all KBN Archives #194542
• Add script to get owners for files [Test Owners] Add script to get owners for files #193277

Iteration 2 - Prevent new files from coming into main, without an owner (test && x-pack/test && x-pack/test_serverless

Enable check and files without owners count === 0

• [Ownership] Add quick check to prevent test files from being added without an owner #201979
• [Ownership] Email kibana-contribs concerning test ownership project #202411

[elasticmachine]

Pinging @elastic/appex-qa (Team:QA)

[dmlemeshko]

Great idea! Just few questions:

Decide whether es_archives need an owner

What are we trying to solve here? Tests and services are being constantly changed and usually scoped to particular team. I see the point of keeping code owners.

Archives are generated one time and widely shared by different teams in quite different tests scenarios. It is gzip files and code review is problematic. But as long as all tests pass on CI, we are good. Thoughts?

Iteration 2

Just an idea: for the start we can enable CI check as opt-in by adding label to the PR and check some PRs without actually blocking them

e.g.

if (GITHUB_PR_LABELS.includes('ci:test-owners-check') {
... push the script as a pipeline step
}

See .buildkite/scripts/pipelines/pull_request/pipeline.ts for details

[wayneseymour]

What are we trying to solve here? Tests and services are being constantly changed and usually scoped to particular team. I see the point of keeping code owners.

I think the idea here is that first I've to ensure all archives have owners, which will include assigning any that do not.
That probably makes us the default owner for archives that are shared across the board, particularly if deciding on an owner takes longer than 10 seconds (as in it doesn't seem worth the time to ask around in the event that it's not easy to guess).

Archives are generated one time and widely shared by different teams in quite different tests scenarios. It is gzip files and code review is problematic. But as long as all tests pass on CI, we are good. Thoughts?

I concur! 💯

[wayneseymour]

ERROR Found 2599 test files without code owner (checked 8268 test files in 6.11 s)

missing_owners.txt