Update CODEOWNERS file

[matt-livefront]

🚧 Type of change

• 🎂 Other

📔 Objective

Updates the CODEOWNERS file to assign teams based on the expected project structure.

We're planning on using the following project structure. This may evolve and grow as we build out the project, but we'll try to group things based on the team that should be assigned to it.

- Bitwarden
- BitwardenActionExtension
- BitwardenAutoFillExtension
- BitwardenShareExtension
- BitwardenShared
    - Core
        - Auth
            - Models
            - Repositories
            - Services
        - Platform
            - Models
            - Repositories
            - Services
        - Tools
            - Models
            - Repositories
            - Services
        - Vault
            - Models
            - Repositories
            - Services
    - UI
        - Auth
            - SignUp
            - Login
        - Platform
            - Common (styles, extensions, reusable views)
            - Settings
        - Tools
            - Generator
            - Send
        - Vault
            - List
            - Detail

Open questions:

• It's not clear to me what all the platform team should be assigned to. Is this everything that's specific to iOS and common/shared code? Would this include things similar to the following?
  • Styling (text, color, themes)
  • App storage, push notifications, general networking, app architecture etc
  • Localizations
  • Config files (e.g. Info.plist, entitlements)
• Are there things that should be assigned to team-leads-eng or should every file ideally have an assigned code owner?

📋 Code changes

• CODEOWNERS: Updated to assign code owners based on the project structure.

📸 Screenshots

⏰ Reminders before review

• Contributor guidelines followed
• All formatters and local linters executed and passed
• Written new unit and / or integration tests where applicable
• Used internationalization (i18n) for all UI strings
• CI builds passed
• Communicated to DevOps any deployment requirements
• Updated any necessary documentation or informed the documentation team

🦮 Reviewer guidelines

• 👍 (:+1:) or similar for great changes
• 📝 (:memo:) or ℹ️ (:information_source:) for notes or general info
• ❓ (:question:) for questions
• 🤔 (:thinking:) or 💭 (:thought_balloon:) for more open inquiry that's not quite a confirmed issue and could potentially benefit from discussion
• 🎨 (:art:) for suggestions / improvements
• ❌ (:x:) or ⚠️ (:warning:) for more significant problems or concerns needing attention
• 🌱 (:seedling:) or ♻️ (:recycle:) for future improvements or indications of technical debt
• ⛏ (:pick:) for minor or nitpick changes

[vvolkgang]

We have been discussing different approaches internally (having team folders closer to the root) but, not having any files yet makes the decision process harder. One thing we agree, based on the current structure it will be easy to pivot at a later stage.

I'm chasing feedback about the Platform ownership, what you described makes sense but I'm not sure about L10N for instance. Tools also own exporters.

Are there things that should be assigned to team-leads-eng or should every file ideally have an assigned code owner?

They're the default assignee when new changes don't fall under any defined ownership, that team is then responsible for defining who owns them. It was recently renamed to tech-leads, we need to update this file.

[matt-livefront]

@vvolkgang Updated based on feedback from our meeting today!

[vvolkgang]

Great, thanks for the update! 👍🏾

[nathan-livefront]

Looks great!