Add sharding keys for feature category container_registry

added database groupcontainer registry maintenancescalability labels

requested review from @jaime

added databasereview pending documentation labels

	3 Warnings
	970eb051: The commit body should not contain more than 72 characters per line. For more information, take a look at our Commit message guidelines.
	This merge request does not have any assignee yet. Setting an assignee clarifies who needs to take action on the merge request at any given time.
	This merge request does not refer to an existing milestone.

	2 Messages
	This merge request adds or changes files that require a review from the Database team.
	This merge request adds or changes documentation files. A review from the Technical Writing team before you merge is recommended. Reviews can happen after you merge.

This merge request requires a database review. To make sure these changes are reviewed, take the following steps:

Ensure the merge request has database and databasereview pending labels. If the merge request modifies database files, Danger will do this for you.
Prepare your MR for database review according to the docs.
Assign and mention the database reviewer suggested by Reviewer Roulette.

If you no longer require a database review, you can remove this suggestion by removing the database label and re-running the danger-review job.

Documentation review

The following files require a review from a technical writer:

db/docs/container_expiration_policies.yml (Link to current live version)
db/docs/container_registry_data_repair_details.yml (Link to current live version)
db/docs/container_registry_protection_rules.yml (Link to current live version)
db/docs/container_repositories.yml (Link to current live version)

The review does not need to block merging this merge request. See the:

Metadata for the *.md files that you've changed. The first few lines of each *.md file identify the stage and group most closely associated with your docs change.
The Technical Writer assigned for that stage and group.
Documentation workflows for information on when to assign a merge request for review.

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

Generated by Danger

changed the description

approved this merge request

@jaime, thanks for approving this merge request.

This is the first time the merge request has been approved. To ensure we don't only run predictive pipelines, and we don't break master, a new pipeline will be started shortly.

Please wait for the pipeline to start before resolving this discussion and set auto-merge for the new pipeline. See merging a merge request for more details.

added pipeline:mr-approved label

	3 Warnings
	970eb051: The commit body should not contain more than 72 characters per line. For more information, take a look at our Commit message guidelines.
	This merge request does not have any assignee yet. Setting an assignee clarifies who needs to take action on the merge request at any given time.
	This merge request does not refer to an existing milestone.

	1 Message
	This merge request adds or changes files that require a review from the Database team.

This merge request requires a database review. To make sure these changes are reviewed, take the following steps:

Ensure the merge request has database and databasereview pending labels. If the merge request modifies database files, Danger will do this for you.
Prepare your MR for database review according to the docs.
Assign and mention the database reviewer suggested by Reviewer Roulette.

The following files require a review from the Database team:

db/docs/container_expiration_policies.yml
db/docs/container_registry_data_repair_details.yml
db/docs/container_registry_protection_rules.yml
db/docs/container_repositories.yml

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
database	`@eurie` (UTC-5, 16 hours behind author)	`@tigerwnz` (UTC+8, 3 hours behind author)

Please check reviewer's status!

Reviewer is available!
Reviewer is unavailable!

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

E2E Test Result Summary

allure-report-publisher generated test report!

e2e-test-on-gdk: test report for 970eb051

expand test summary

+------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                          suites summary                          |
+-------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+--------+
|             | passed | failed | skipped | flaky | total | result |
+-------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+--------+
| Package     | 15     | 0      | 1       | 0     | 16    | ✅     |
| Govern      | 3      | 0      | 0       | 0     | 3     | ✅     |
| Create      | 8      | 0      | 3       | 0     | 11    | ✅     |
| Plan        | 4      | 0      | 0       | 0     | 4     | ✅     |
| Data Stores | 2      | 0      | 0       | 0     | 2     | ✅     |
| Monitor     | 4      | 0      | 0       | 0     | 4     | ✅     |
+-------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+--------+
| Total       | 36     | 0      | 4       | 0     | 40    | ✅     |
+-------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+--------+

e2e-package-and-test: test report for 970eb051

expand test summary

+------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                          suites summary                          |
+-------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+--------+
|             | passed | failed | skipped | flaky | total | result |
+-------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+--------+
| Package     | 226    | 1      | 17      | 0     | 244   | ❌     |
| Create      | 144    | 0      | 24      | 2     | 168   | ✅     |
| Govern      | 6      | 0      | 0       | 0     | 6     | ✅     |
| Data Stores | 4      | 0      | 0       | 0     | 4     | ✅     |
| Monitor     | 8      | 0      | 0       | 0     | 8     | ✅     |
| Plan        | 8      | 0      | 0       | 0     | 8     | ✅     |
+-------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+--------+
| Total       | 396    | 1      | 41      | 2     | 438   | ❌     |
+-------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+--------+

Based on the docs this LGTM. However, I need a second pair of eyes to confirm this change, @adie.po could you also have a look please?

requested review from @adie.po

mentioned in issue #429165 (closed)

requested review from @10io

approved this merge request

removed review request for @10io

requested review from @10io

approved this merge request

requested review from @tigerwnz and removed review request for @10io

approved this merge request

changed milestone to %16.9

added databaseapproved label and removed databasereview pending label

resolved all threads

enabled an automatic merge when all merge checks for 970eb051 pass

merged

Hello @DylanGriffith

The database team is looking for ways to improve the database review process and we would love your help!

If you'd be open to someone on the database team reaching out to you for a chat, or if you'd like to leave some feedback asynchronously, just post a reply to this comment mentioning: