Make component field configurable

[lgecse]

Fixes #149

Dev notes:

• added jira-components field to the config
• added logic to fill the field of the Jira item when creating and updating
• updated readme

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #150 (f0f5cce) into main (0af3507) will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is n/a.

❗ Current head f0f5cce differs from pull request most recent head d60c7de. Consider uploading reports for the commit d60c7de to get more accurate results

@@          Coverage Diff          @@
##            main    #150   +/-   ##
=====================================
  Coverage   0.00%   0.00%           
=====================================
  Files          1       1           
  Lines         67      67           
=====================================
  Misses        67      67           

📣 We’re building smart automated test selection to slash your CI/CD build times. Learn more

[justaugustus]

Great start, @lgecse!

The component field on Jira appears to support multiple components, so we'll want to support a slice of components vs a single component string in our config.

Additionally, have you considered what will happen in update scenarios (especially ones where the list of components that the user specifies in the config for this tool does not match the list of components already set on Jira)?

Given this tools' goal of being a one-way sync, we should:

• get the current list of components for the issue
• add the components specified in this config, but:
• never remove components that are already set on the issue

(and have tests to ensure that behavior is adhered to)

[lgecse]

@justaugustus I was thinking about the update path, I'm working on it rn.

The aim of this PR is to make the issue creation work when the component field in Jira is set mandatory. As I think more and more I have to realise there could be other Jira fields set required in a Jira setup. It would be nice to get this behaviour generic eventually.

I agree with never removing components from Jira issues, only adding new ones to the list.

[rappizs]

(and have tests to ensure that behavior is adhered to)

Will this be part of this PR or it will be covered by #11?

[justaugustus]

@lgecse -- it looks like the commits have slowed here... are you ready for another review pass?

[lgecse]

@justaugustus I'd be happy to get a second review, thanks a lot in advance!

[justaugustus]

@lgecse -- Flagging a previous review comment, which I think will change some of the logic throughout.

[justaugustus]

(discussed in #150 (review))

This should be []string.

[lgecse]

OK, on it.

[lgecse]

Resolved, please review.

[justaugustus]

Thanks @lgecse!!