Add owners in interface.yaml

[IronCore864]

Background:

We would like to run the charm-relation-interfaces tests on a schedule using a GitHub Actions cron job, and if a certain interface test failed, we'd like to automatically create an issue and assign it to the owner (if specified).

This PR adds support to define the owners field (a list of GitHub user IDs) in interface.yaml. Example:

name: prometheus_scrape

version: 0
status: published

providers:
  - name: prometheus-k8s
    url: https://www.github.com/canonical/prometheus-k8s-operator

requirers:
  - name: prometheus-k8s
    url: https://www.github.com/canonical/prometheus-k8s-operator

owners:
  - ironcore864
  - foo
  - bar

[PietroPasotti]

I'd expect in most cases the owner of the interface to be the owner of the charm lib that implements the wrapper for the provider side.
So, owner of the interface tests = owner of the provider charm.

Also at least in our case that'd be a team, is that also a supported use case?

[IronCore864]

I'd expect in most cases the owner of the interface to be the owner of the charm lib that implements the wrapper for the provider side. So, owner of the interface tests = owner of the provider charm.

Also at least in our case that'd be a team, is that also a supported use case?

Hi @PietroPasotti, today we had a discussion in our team's standup, and here's our discovery and some initial conclusion:

• Assigning an issue to a team is not possible, it can only be assigned to members.
• If we don't add the owner it's not easy to find the owner's GitHub ID. It's not in the charm, and it's possible for an interface to have multiple charms testing it.
• We considered adding interface-owner mapping in CODEOWNERS in the charm-relation-interfaces repo, but it's not as convenient as managing this distributedly because we can add it in the template.

As a conclusion, here's what we want to do:

• Don't use CODEOWNERS, but still maintain interface-owner mapping in the interface.yaml file.
• Instead of assigning an issue to a single owner, we want to make it a list, I.E., owners, so that multiple users can be assigned simultaneously.

I will make the changes accordingly.

[IronCore864]

@PietroPasotti I have changed it to owners, a list, according to the previous discussion. Please take a look.

[PietroPasotti]

One minor nit, the rest LGTM

[IronCore864]

One minor nit, the rest LGTM

Fixed, and also bumped the version to v3.1.0.