Add possibility to add assignees to pull request

[Berreek]

What does this change

Add parameter assignees (-a) to the run command that allows to specify assignees usernames that should be added to the created pull request.

What issue does it fix

Closes #194

Notes for the reviewer

I'm not sure about one change in this pull request which is worth to mention I guess. In current implementation for GitLab when you pass reviewers in the command they were converted to assignees in GitLab. I changed it here so reviewers are converted to reviewers and assignees to assignees. This is a breaking change I assume if someone relied on the previous behaviuour.

Checklist

• Made sure the PR follows the CONTRIBUTING.md guidelines
• Tests if something new is added

[lindell]

I would say that the GitLab implementation before was a bug. Even through it's a breaking change, I think we are fine to fix it since Multi-gitter is still not 1.0.0 🙂

[lindell]

Thanks for the contribution ❤️

There seems to be a minor mistake in the test, and a file that isn't gofmt'ed, otherwise it look good to me 😄

[lindell]

@ryancurrah Do you have the ability to test out the new --assignees flag in bitbucket server? 🙂

[ryancurrah]

What's the difference between assignees and reviewers?

[lindell]

@ryancurrah From this response:
For "reviewer": someone you want to review the code. Not necessarily the person responsible for that area or responsible for merging the commit. Can be someone who worked on that chunk of code before, as GitHub auto-suggests.

For "assignee": up to the project's team/maintainer what it means and there's no strict definition. It can be the PR opener, or someone responsible for that area (who is going to accept the PR after the review is done or just close it). It's not up to GitHub to define what it is leaving it open for project maintainers what fits best for their project.

[Berreek]

I applied suggestions from the code review and verified that it works for GitHub.

[ryancurrah]

Hrm thats not a concept that exists in Bitbucket. Not sure how it will apply here. Maybe note that it wont work for certain SCM providers.

[lindell]

Assignees do not exist, but "Participants" seems to be a concept. It seems that they should be similar, but I'm not really sure.

[lindell]

LGTM 👍 Thanks for the contribution 😄

The only thing I'm uncertain about is if we should do the assignee -> participant mapping for bitbucket server. I will let @ryancurrah decide that. Otherwise, I'm ready to merge it.

[ryancurrah]

LGTM 👍 Thanks for the contribution 😄

The only thing I'm uncertain about is if we should do the assignee -> participant mapping for bitbucket server. I will let @ryancurrah decide that. Otherwise, I'm ready to merge it.

Looking at the API documentation a participant has three roles, AUTHOR, REVIEWER, or PARTICIPANT. - https://docs.atlassian.com/bitbucket-server/rest/7.17.0/bitbucket-rest.html#idp282

So participant is how a reviewer is added to a pull request.

And it looks like only REVIEWER role can be assigned.

Currently only the REVIEWER role may be assigned. - https://docs.atlassian.com/bitbucket-server/rest/7.17.0/bitbucket-rest.html#idp350

So it seems that in this case participant -> reviewer.

[lindell]

Thanks @ryancurrah 👍 I guess in that case, we should remove the assignees for bitbucket server, since assigning participants are already reviewers?

[ryancurrah]

Yes that seems to be the case.

[lindell]

@Berreek If you remove the bitbucket server code, I'm ready to merge the PR 🙂

[Berreek]

Done!

[lindell]

Released in v0.35.0 🎉