Pass down resource_id for AI features

What does this MR do and why?

Pass down resource_id for AI features

To get more knowledge about the current resource the chat is acting on, we inject the resource_id from the backend. For now we only pass it down for issues issues and will extend the resource types later.

Screenshots or screen recordings

How to set up and validate locally

1. Set up AI features locally https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/development/ai_features.html#test-ai-features-locally
2. Enable Feature.enable(:gitlab_duo)
3. Go to a any page that is not an issue -> the resource_id will fallback to user_id
4. Go to an issue page -> the resource_id will be the global ID from the issue
5. You can either verify by checking the aiSubscriptionResponse in the Network -> WS (Websockets) tab, or when performing a chat request with something like "Summarize this issue" and check the GraphQL mutation for the resourceId

MR acceptance checklist

This checklist encourages us to confirm any changes have been analyzed to reduce risks in quality, performance, reliability, security, and maintainability.

• I have evaluated the MR acceptance checklist for this MR.

changed milestone to %16.1

added groupai framework maintenancerefactor typemaintenance labels

assigned to @nicolasdular

added backend frontend labels

	1 Warning
	d80d3afc: Commits that change 30 or more lines across at least 3 files should describe these changes in the commit body. For more information, take a look at our Commit message guidelines.

Reviewer roulette

Changes that require review have been detected!

Please refer to the table below for assigning reviewers and maintainers suggested by Danger in the specified category:

Category	Reviewer	Maintainer
backend	Hinam Mehra (@hmehra) (UTC+10, 8 hours ahead of @nicolasdular)	Jarka Košanová (@jarka) (UTC+2, same timezone as @nicolasdular)
frontend	Deepika Guliani (@deepika.guliani) (UTC+5.5, 3.5 hours ahead of @nicolasdular)	Paul Slaughter (@pslaughter) (UTC-5, 7 hours behind @nicolasdular)

To spread load more evenly across eligible reviewers, Danger has picked a candidate for each review slot, based on their timezone. Feel free to override these selections if you think someone else would be better-suited or use the GitLab Review Workload Dashboard to find other available reviewers.

To read more on how to use the reviewer roulette, please take a look at the Engineering workflow and code review guidelines. Please consider assigning a reviewer or maintainer who is a domain expert in the area of the merge request.

Once you've decided who will review this merge request, assign them as a reviewer! Danger does not automatically notify them for you.

If needed, you can retry the danger-review job that generated this comment.

Generated by Danger

Bundle size analysis [beta]

This compares changes in bundle size for entry points between the commits d54231c3 and 3ef6ee1b

Special assets

Entrypoint / Name	Size before	Size after	Diff	Diff in percent
average	4.12 MB	4.12 MB	-	0.0 %
mainChunk	3 MB	3 MB	-	0.0 %

---

Note: We do not have exact data for d54231c3. So we have used data from: e5b5d55a.
The intended commit has no webpack pipeline, so we chose the last commit with one before it.

Please look at the full report for more details

---

Read more about how this report works.

Generated by Danger

added 1 commit

• e9b0c7c8 - Pass down resource_id for AI features

Compare with previous version

added 237 commits

• e9b0c7c8...0912ba84 - 236 commits from branch master
• aa2f388a - Pass down resource_id for AI features

Compare with previous version

Allure report

allure-report-publisher generated test report!

e2e-test-on-gdk: test report for 3ef6ee1b

expand test summary

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                            suites summary                             |
+------------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+--------+
|                  | passed | failed | skipped | flaky | total | result |
+------------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+--------+
| Create           | 8      | 0      | 1       | 0     | 9     | ✅     |
| Framework sanity | 0      | 0      | 1       | 0     | 1     | ➖     |
| Monitor          | 4      | 0      | 0       | 0     | 4     | ✅     |
| Govern           | 2      | 0      | 0       | 0     | 2     | ✅     |
| Plan             | 4      | 0      | 0       | 0     | 4     | ✅     |
| Data Stores      | 2      | 0      | 0       | 1     | 2     | ❗     |
| Manage           | 1      | 0      | 0       | 0     | 1     | ✅     |
+------------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+--------+
| Total            | 21     | 0      | 2       | 1     | 23    | ❗     |
+------------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+--------+

e2e-review-qa: test report for 3ef6ee1b

expand test summary

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                            suites summary                             |
+------------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+--------+
|                  | passed | failed | skipped | flaky | total | result |
+------------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+--------+
| Manage           | 1      | 0      | 0       | 0     | 1     | ✅     |
| Create           | 8      | 0      | 1       | 0     | 9     | ✅     |
| Framework sanity | 0      | 0      | 1       | 0     | 1     | ➖     |
| Data Stores      | 2      | 0      | 0       | 1     | 2     | ❗     |
| Monitor          | 4      | 0      | 0       | 0     | 4     | ✅     |
| Plan             | 3      | 0      | 1       | 0     | 4     | ✅     |
| Govern           | 2      | 0      | 0       | 0     | 2     | ✅     |
+------------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+--------+
| Total            | 20     | 0      | 3       | 1     | 23    | ❗     |
+------------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+--------+

changed the description

Hey @mksionek, Do you mind performing a backend review for this merge request, please? :) Thanks!

requested review from @mksionek

requested review from @eduardosanz

approved this merge request

Frontend looks good! Approving!

removed review request for @eduardosanz

@eduardosanz, thanks for approving this merge request.

This is the first time the merge request is approved. To ensure full test coverage, a new pipeline will be started shortly.

For more info, please refer to the following links:

• rspec predictive jobs
• jest predictive jobs
• merging a merge request.