Skip to content

[Cato Networks] Update changelog, version in manifest and Sync CODEOWNERS - #19158

Merged
ShourieG merged 2 commits into
elastic:feature/cato_networks-0.1.0from
sharad-elastic:package-cato_networks-update-changelog
May 22, 2026
Merged

ShourieG merged 2 commits into
elastic:feature/cato_networks-0.1.0from
sharad-elastic:package-cato_networks-update-changelog

Conversation

@sharad-elastic

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Proposed commit message

Update changelog entry, manifest version and sync CODEOWNERS file with main branch.

@sharad-elastic
sharad-elastic requested a review from a team as a code owner May 22, 2026 08:57
@github-actions

This comment has been minimized.

@github-actions

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

TL;DR

Check go sources failed because this PR changed the Barracuda CODEOWNERS entry to a team that does not match the package manifest owner. Update /packages/barracuda in .github/CODEOWNERS back to @elastic/security-service-integrations (or change packages/barracuda/manifest.yml owner to match, if intentional).

Remediation

  • Change .github/CODEOWNERS entry for Barracuda from:
    • /packages/barracuda @elastic/integration-experience``
      to:
    • /packages/barracuda @elastic/security-service-integrations``
  • Re-run CI (Check go sources) after the CODEOWNERS/manifest owner alignment.
Investigation details

Root Cause

dev/codeowners.Check validates that package owner in each manifest.yml exists in .github/CODEOWNERS for that package path.

At PR head (322568d9cb1463096e9b536c004fe6904fc29b4c):

  • packages/barracuda/manifest.yml:63 has github: elastic/security-service-integrations
  • .github/CODEOWNERS:147 has /packages/barracuda @elastic/integration-experience``

These are inconsistent, so validation fails.

Evidence

  • Build: https://buildkite.com/elastic/integrations/builds/43307
  • Job/step: ✅ Check go sources (.buildkite/scripts/check_sources.sh)
  • Key log excerpt:
    Running dependency: github.com/elastic/integrations/dev/codeowners.Check
    Error: error validating packages in directory 'packages': error checking manifest 'packages/barracuda/manifest.yml': owner "elastic/security-service-integrations" defined in "packages/barracuda/manifest.yml" is not in ".github/CODEOWNERS"
    
  • Commit diff evidence: parent commit had /packages/barracuda @elastic/security-service-integrations``; this PR changed it to @elastic/integration-experience.

Verification

  • Not run in this environment: .buildkite/scripts/check_sources.sh depends on Buildkite runtime env vars (SETUP_GVM_VERSION), but failure is directly evidenced in the Buildkite log and the checked-in files at PR head.

Follow-up

  • If Barracuda ownership was intentionally moved to Integration Experience, update packages/barracuda/manifest.yml owner accordingly in the same PR to keep checks green.

Note

🔒 Integrity filter blocked 2 items

The following items were blocked because they don't meet the GitHub integrity level.

To allow these resources, lower min-integrity in your GitHub frontmatter:

tools:
  github:
    min-integrity: approved  # merged | approved | unapproved | none

What is this? | From workflow: PR Buildkite Detective

Give us feedback! React with 🚀 if perfect, 👍 if helpful, 👎 if not.

@sharad-elastic
sharad-elastic force-pushed the package-cato_networks-update-changelog branch from 79bf5b0 to e4da4fe Compare May 22, 2026 10:07
@elasticmachine

Copy link
Copy Markdown

💚 Build Succeeded

History

@ShourieG

ShourieG commented May 22, 2026 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

We need to keep a forward upgrade path to versioning from next time, the current approach seems to break conventions.

@ShourieG
ShourieG merged commit d57509d into elastic:feature/cato_networks-0.1.0 May 22, 2026
4 checks passed
@sharad-elastic
sharad-elastic deleted the package-cato_networks-update-changelog branch August 21, 2026 06:58
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants