GitHub validation checks look for organization conflicts

[ryscheng]

Right now the validation is just simple duplicate checking.

This leaves open the following bug:

• Project A claims a repo
• Project B claims the org

This should be a conflict, but I don't think we check for it right now.

In an ideal world we enumerate in the logs all the repos that are conflicting and all of the repos that you can claim individually.

[ccerv1]

On a related note, from contributor @DistributedDoge :

With current I don't really have a way of telling if some github url line in your dataset is github user or organization unless I ask GH API (sloow) so if I was to make a next version I would think about:

github-orgs:
    - a
    - b
github-repos:
    - c
    - d

We should implement standardized logic for determining when a repo within an org is used versus just the org. And, when it is a solo user, we should only accept a repo (or list of repus) instead of the user.

[ccerv1]

Prioritizing this in light of convos with Optimism for RF4. We need a simple check to determine when a project should be added to OSS Directory. For example:

• First commit is more than 90 days ago
• Most recent commit in the past 30 days
• At least 10 distinct days of activity

[ryscheng]

For the RetroPGF requirements, there's a separate issue. Let's not expand the scope of this issue https://github.com/opensource-observer/oso/issues/1175

[ryscheng]

I think we talked about this during a standup, but perhaps we forgot to take down some notes.

The current thinking is that we update our semantics:

• No 2 projects can claim the same org
• No 2 projects can claim the same repo
• If project A claims a repo within an org that's claimed by Project B, then project B has every repo in that org except for the ones claimed.

In other words, each repo can still only be claimed by 1 project, but if you specify a repo specifically, that takes priority.

We have to update our pipelines to actually behave this way though

[ravenac95]

I think we can close this? @ryscheng @ccerv1. My test PR from yesterday passed: https://github.com/opensource-observer/oss-directory/pull/287

[ryscheng]

@ravenac95 I think we still need to update the dbt pipeline to reflect these semantics

@ccerv1 younsaid you already had part of this?

[ravenac95]

@ravenac95 I think we still need to update the dbt pipeline to reflect these semantics

@ryscheng Ah yeah. I think you're right. AFAIK, right now both projects would have the github artifact