If you're using Git, then typically for each push to the remote repository you get a notification with this data in it:
BRANCH # the remote branch getting updated
OLD_COMMIT # the commit the branch ref was pointing to before the push
NEW_COMMIT # the commit the branch ref was pointing to after the push
# To get the list of files that changed in the push:
git diff --name-only "$OLD_COMMIT" "$NEW_COMMIT"
Once you know which files changed in a push you can figure out which artifacts you need to build. Right now you'll have to write that tooling yourself since I don't know of any off-the-shelf tools that do it. In my company's case, we have "project.yml" files scattered through the repo telling us which directories have buildable artifacts and what branches each one needs to be built for. The tooling to support this is a few hundred lines of Bash and Python. In our case we're still small enough that we can brute force some stuff, but we can easily improve the tooling as we go along.Figuring out which files change is relatively easy (as you've demonstrated). Figuring out what the impact of that is quite hard in non-compiled languages (tools like Maven, Buck, Bazel, etc do this well for compiled languages). I.e. In a repo which is primarily JavaScript, I can get the list of changed files, and hopefully have unit test files which are obviously linear to those. However, knowing if these are depended on by other files/modules (at some depth) is much harder. Same for integration tests -- which of these are related?
Also building/testing is far more effective at finding dependencies than just going by repo structure. There are numerous package managers available to solve versioning if you need separate components.
So you made a commit. What artifacts change as a result? What do you need to rebuild, retest, and redeploy? It doesn’t take a large amount of scale to make rebuilding and retesting everything impossible. In a poly repo world, the repository is generally the unit of building and deployment. In monorepo it gets more messy.
For instance, one perceived benefit of a monorepo is it removes the need for explicit versioning between libraries and the code that uses them, since they’re all versioned together.
But now, if someone changes the library, you need to have a way to find all of its usages, and retest those to make sure the changed didn’t break their use. So there’s a dependency tree of components somewhere that needs to be established, but now it’s not explicit, and no one is given the option to pin to a particular version if they can’t/won’t update. This is the world of google & influcenced the (lack of) dependency management in go.
You could very well publish everything independently, using semver, and put build descriptors inside each project subdirectory, but then, congratulations, you just invented the polyrepo, or an approximation thereof.