Difference between revisions of "Contributing to Phobos"
(removed checks) |
m (→How to make a good submission?: link fix) |
||
Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
# [https://help.github.com/articles/fork-a-repo/ Fork] [https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos Phobos] on Github | # [https://help.github.com/articles/fork-a-repo/ Fork] [https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos Phobos] on Github | ||
# Create your [https://github.com/Kunena/Kunena-Forum/wiki/Create-a-new-branch-with-git-and-manage-branches own branch] | # Create your [https://github.com/Kunena/Kunena-Forum/wiki/Create-a-new-branch-with-git-and-manage-branches own branch] | ||
− | # [Starting as a Contributor#Building_D Work | + | # [[Starting as a Contributor#Building_D|Work locally]] on your new feature or fix (see the tips below) |
# [[#tests|Test]] your improvements locally | # [[#tests|Test]] your improvements locally | ||
# Submit your [https://help.github.com/articles/creating-a-pull-request/ pull request] (PR) | # Submit your [https://help.github.com/articles/creating-a-pull-request/ pull request] (PR) |
Revision as of 10:11, 30 March 2016
Contents
Guidelines for Contributing
Welcome to the D community and thanks for your interest in contributing!
Quick links
- Fork on Github
- Use our Bugzilla bug tracker
- Follow the D style
- Participate in our forum
- Ask questions on
#d
IRC channel on freenode.org (web interface) - Review Phobos additions in the Review Queue
How to make a good submission?
The usual workflow is:
- Fork Phobos on Github
- Create your own branch
- Work locally on your new feature or fix (see the tips below)
- Test your improvements locally
- Submit your pull request (PR)
Below is a list of tips and checks that you should consider before opening your pull request:
Code style
- Stick to the style guide? (e.g. braces in their own lines (allman style) or white spaces between operators)
- Avoid unnecessarily importing other Phobos modules
- Try to not require a garbage collector (this is not a must)
- Avoid code duplication
- Maximal
@nogc
,@safe
,pure
,nothrow
in non-templated functions - Don't add
@nogc
,@safe
,pure
,nothrow
attributes to templated functions - let the compiler infer it! However add unittest checks for these attributes if possible (e.g.pure nothrow @nogc @safe unittest { ... }
) - Avoid using
auto
as return type wherever possible (makes the documentation easier to read) - Use
static
nested structs for ranges (aka Voldemort types) and thus store function parameters explicitly in the nested struct - Avoid
unittest
in templates (it will generate a new unittest for each instance) - put your tests outside
Code advice
- Don't be afraid to use the new compiler or language features (e.g.
Foo!Range
vs.Foo!(Range)
) - Be critical when looking at Phobos code (some parts of Phobos are a bit older and have some relics due to lacking functionality of the compiler)
- Is there an easier or more performant way to do it?
- Does your PR address only one topic? Can it be split up in smaller PRs?
- Is your code flexible enough to accommodate more use cases?
- Read through your code again - is there any part that is not understandable?
Tests
- Autotester will automatically compile the code in your PR and test it on all supported platforms. For your first PR you need approval from any reviewer - ping them in case they forget.
- Do all tests pass locally? You can run the tests of
- single module or packages with
make -f posix.mak std/algorithm/comparison.test
ormake -f posix.mak std/algorithm.test
- all tests with
make -f posix.mak unittest
(add-j NUMBER_OF_CORES
if you have multiple cores) - for small changes in a single module faster with
rdmd -main -unittest comparison.d
(be careful, this links to your current Phobos version) - for Windows have a look at building Phobos under windows)
- single module or packages with
- Do your tests cover all cases? (you can check code coverage in the resulting
module.lst
ofrdmd -cov -main -unittest module.d
)
Review process
- All PRs must pass all tests for all supported platforms of autotester before they will be merged
- Big additions (new modules) should go to
std.experimental
first (after they pass the review process) - Smaller additions like individual functions can be merged directly after @andralex approves
- Refactoring or bug fixes just need approval (LGTM) from two reviewers and enough time passed (usually 2-3 days, depending on weekends and holidays) to give everyone an opportunity to shout
- For low-level changes the other compiler devs (GDC and LLVM) should be consulted
- Trivial changes (e.g. small documentation enhancements) are usually merged in less than 72h - otherwise ping for reviewers
- If your PR is stalled (no activity for 2-3 days) and you addressed all concerns, don't hesitate to ping your reviewers
- Ping @9il for anything math related
- See Rebasing if you need to sync your fork with master
Naming
- Use a Capitalized short (50 chars or less) Git commit summary
- If necessary, wrap your Git explanation paragraph to 72 chars
- Do you use clear variable names?
- Does your PR have a concise and informative title?
- Are your Git messages clear and informative (otherwise use
git commit --amend
for a single commit orgit rebase
for multiple commits)? - Avoid having many commits per PR (usually one commit per PR) - see squashing to combine commits
Fixing issues
- Bug fix PRs should have a separate commit for each bugzilla issue that it fixes
- The message of the commit actually fixes the bug should start with "Fix issue X" where X is the number of the corresponding bugzilla issue. For example:
+ Refactor the code assist with the bug fix + Fix issue 17000 - map doesn't accept some range types + Fix issue 17001 - map doesn't work with some other range type
- Unrelated fixes, refactorings or additions should preferably go separate pull request(s) (tightly related fixes are okay in the same PR)
Documentation
Documentation style
- The documentation is written in ddoc
- Use complete English sentences with correct syntax, grammar, and punctuation
- Use precise technical terms. Avoids colloquialisms
- Honestly describe limitations and dangers
- Add
Params
,Returns
and if neededSee_Also
sections - Provide at least one ddoced unittest for a new method
- Have a brief one sentence summary for at the beginning of a method
- Give a synopsis at the beginning of a module accompanied by an example
Documentation checks
- Read your documentation text aloud - is it understandable?
- Check the output of CyberShadows's DAutoTest of the documentation (or run it yourself)
- All user impacting changes should have a corresponding changelog entry
- Did you add your method to the summary booktable or cheatsheat of a module? (might be in
package.d
)
Documentation tricks
- Use backticks
`code`
instead of$(D foo)
- Start with a Capital letter in all blocks of the method header
- Use
$(REF)
for links to other methods (format is$(REF _stripLeft, std, algorithm, mutation)
) - Use
$(REF_ALTTEXT)
for a different link name (format is$(REF_ALTTEXT your text, formattedRead, std, format)
- Variables will be automatically put in backticks, use an underscore to avoid this behavior (e.g.
_foo
) - Section headings are marked by a line with a single word followed by a colon
:
, use an underscore to avoid this behavior (e.g.with the following \n code:
needs_code
to avoid the creation of a section) - Section headings with multiple words should use underscores instead of spaces (e.g.
See_Also:
) - Don't put examples in your ddoc header - use the
///
magic to annotate them. Ddoc will automatically add the annotated test(s) to theExamples
section of the method, e.g.:
/// unittest { assert(1 == 1); }
- Use
/// ditto
to join multiple methods in the documentation
Happy hacking!
If you find a new gotcha, don't hesitate to edit this guide.
Thank you for your contribution!