blob: 5b49ef4882d7aa57c7e44a48d1e0ecea11048854 [file] [log] [blame] [view]
jrperritt9b7b9e62016-07-11 22:30:50 -05001
2## On Pull Requests
3
4- Before you start a PR there needs to be a Github issue and a discussion about it
5 on that issue with a core contributor, even if it's just a 'SGTM'.
6
7- A PR's description must reference the issue it closes with a `For <ISSUE NUMBER>` (e.g. For #293).
8
9- A PR's description must contain link(s) to the line(s) in the OpenStack
10 source code (on Github) that prove(s) the PR code to be valid. Links to documentation
11 are not good enough. The link(s) should be to a non-`master` branch. For example,
12 a pull request implementing the creation of a Neutron v2 subnet might put the
13 following link in the description:
jrperritt792d51f2016-07-18 11:48:55 -050014
jrperritt9b7b9e62016-07-11 22:30:50 -050015 https://github.com/openstack/neutron/blob/stable/mitaka/neutron/api/v2/attributes.py#L749
jrperritt792d51f2016-07-18 11:48:55 -050016
jrperritt9b7b9e62016-07-11 22:30:50 -050017 From that link, a reviewer (or user) can verify the fields in the request/response
18 objects in the PR.
19
20- A PR that is in-progress should have `[wip]` in front of the PR's title. When
21 ready for review, remove the `[wip]` and ping a core contributor with an `@`.
22
jrperrittc0df5212017-01-20 14:14:37 -060023- Forcing PRs to be small can have the effect of users submitting PRs in a hierarchical chain, with
24 one depending on the next. If a PR depends on another one, it should have a [Pending #PRNUM]
25 prefix in the PR title. In addition, it will be the PR submitter's responsibility to remove the
26 [Pending #PRNUM] tag once the PR has been updated with the merged, dependent PR. That will
27 let reviewers know it is ready to review.
28
jrperritt9b7b9e62016-07-11 22:30:50 -050029- A PR should be small. Even if you intend on implementing an entire
30 service, a PR should only be one route of that service
31 (e.g. create server or get server, but not both).
32
33- Unless explicitly asked, do not squash commits in the middle of a review; only
34 append. It makes it difficult for the reviewer to see what's changed from one
35 review to the next.
36
37## On Code
38
39- In re design: follow as closely as is reasonable the code already in the library.
40 Most operations (e.g. create, delete) admit the same design.
41
42- Unit tests and acceptance (integration) tests must be written to cover each PR.
43 Tests for operations with several options (e.g. list, create) should include all
44 the options in the tests. This will allow users to verify an operation on their
45 own infrastructure and see an example of usage.
46
47- If in doubt, ask in-line on the PR.
jrperritt792d51f2016-07-18 11:48:55 -050048
49### File Structure
50
51- The following should be used in most cases:
52
53 - `requests.go`: contains all the functions that make HTTP requests and the
54 types associated with the HTTP request (parameters for URL, body, etc)
55 - `results.go`: contains all the response objects and their methods
56 - `urls.go`: contains the endpoints to which the requests are made
57
58### Naming
59
60- For methods on a type in `response.go`, the receiver should be named `r` and the
61 variable into which it will be unmarshalled `s`.
62
63- Functions in `requests.go`, with the exception of functions that return a
64 `pagination.Pager`, should be named returns of the name `r`.
65
66- Functions in `requests.go` that accept request bodies should accept as their
67 last parameter an `interface` named `<Action>OptsBuilder` (eg `CreateOptsBuilder`).
68 This `interface` should have at the least a method named `To<Resource><Action>Map`
69 (eg `ToPortCreateMap`).
70
71- Functions in `requests.go` that accept query strings should accept as their
72 last parameter an `interface` named `<Action>OptsBuilder` (eg `ListOptsBuilder`).
73 This `interface` should have at the least a method named `To<Resource><Action>Query`
74 (eg `ToServerListQuery`).