[Feature][Domain] Support multiple assignees for issues in the issue tracking domain

[narrowizard]

Search before asking

• I had searched in the issues and found no similar feature requirement.

Use case

As a DevOps team, we use TAPD as our issue tracking tool, which supports multiple assignees for a single task. However, the current schema of the issue tracking domain in DevLake only supports one assignee per task. We need DevLake to support multiple assignees for issues to better reflect our real-world workflows.

Description

Currently, when we collect data from TAPD through DevLake, we are not able to properly capture multiple assignees for a single task. This creates ambiguity and can make it difficult to accurately track the ownership and progress of an issue. Therefore, we would like to request that DevLake updates the schema of the issue tracking domain to support multiple assignees for tasks.

We understand that this change may impact other parts of the system and require changes to the data ingestion process. As such, we recommend that this feature request be prioritized as high and are willing to work closely with the DevLake development team to ensure a smooth integration.

Related issues

No response

Are you willing to submit a PR?

• Yes I am willing to submit a PR!

Code of Conduct

• I agree to follow this project's Code of Conduct

[coldgust]

Hi, I would like to work with this task, have a design schema now?

[klesh]

Thanks for volunteering. I think we should add a table named issue_assignees (issue_id, assignee_id, assignee_name) and update all plugins according.

What do you guys think?
@narrowizard @Startrekzky

[narrowizard]

• issue_assignees looks good to me. @klesh
• We expect this feature to be completed in version 0.18 (before 4.30), do you have enough time to develop it? @coldgust

[github-actions]

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity for 30 days. It will be closed in next 7 days if no further activity occurs.

[github-actions]

This issue has been closed because it has not received response for too long time. You could reopen it if you encountered similar problems in the future.