[Feature Request] Allow configuration of `package_todo.yml` violation destinations about packwerk HOT 4 OPEN

At gusto, several of our teams have also requested this feature. When I'm trying to figure out what privacy violation to tackle next, I'm often using RubyMine tricks to get a coherent view of the privacy violations for my pack.

from packwerk.

Thank you for the issue, but my opinion continue the same #261 (comment).

I'd totally accept a PR to change the database to use a different format that allow us to write any queries we want, so team can answer the questions they have about their package. But, the place were the violation are recorded in the repository should stay the same.

Also, this is mostly for the privacy checks, that aren't part of Packwerk anymore, and we (Shopify) discourage the usage of the current implementation of privacy checks.

from packwerk.

Thanks, @rafaelfranca. I can appreciate the simplicity from the library’s perspective of keeping the rule consistent for violation reporting location. I can also understand that adding this feature is all cost and no benefit for your use case if you’re not interested in the privacy checker.

Our primary motivation for violation destination configuration is to enable ownership, responsibility, and notifications for violations to happen as automatically as possible. We (unsurprisingly) lean into GitHub functionality as a first measure, and like the diff-ability and codeowners integrations that text files provide. While we could accomplish our goals with actions or scripts external to Packwerk, the issue proposal removes the need for external tooling.

It seems to me that making the output location user-configurable per checker would only invoke the cost of feature maintenance on this library, but otherwise not impose any cost on gem consumers who choose to use default settings. I am admittedly new to this ecosystem so perhaps that cost is higher than I estimate?

Tangentially, I’m curious if you’re able to speak to whether Shopify has a different privacy checking path in mind down the road, or rather is not interested in that style of check at this time?

from packwerk.

@rafaelfranca just a friendly bump for the conversation here. I know the conference makes for a busy time, so just looking to resume when you're available ❤️

from packwerk.