77 lines
3.1 KiB
Markdown
77 lines
3.1 KiB
Markdown
# Review Guidelines
|
|
|
|
The following summarises review guidelines that we follow for pull requests in
|
|
Riot Web and other supporting repos. These are just guidelines (not strict
|
|
rules) and may be updated over time.
|
|
|
|
## Code Review
|
|
|
|
When reviewing code, here are some things we look for and also things we avoid:
|
|
|
|
### We review for
|
|
|
|
* Correctness
|
|
* Performance
|
|
* Accessibility
|
|
* Security
|
|
* Comments and documentation where needed
|
|
* Sharing knowledge of different areas among the team
|
|
* Ensuring it's something we're comfortable maintaining for the long term
|
|
|
|
### We should avoid
|
|
|
|
* Style nits that are already handled by the linter
|
|
* Dramatically increasing scope
|
|
|
|
### Good practices
|
|
|
|
* Use empathetic language
|
|
* See also [Mindful Communication in Code
|
|
Reviews](https://kickstarter.engineering/a-guide-to-mindful-communication-in-code-reviews-48aab5282e5e)
|
|
and [How to Do Code Reviews Like a Human](https://mtlynch.io/human-code-reviews-1/)
|
|
* Authors should prefer smaller commits for easier reviewing and bisection
|
|
* Reviewers should be explicit about required versus optional changes
|
|
* Reviews are conversations and the PR author should feel comfortable
|
|
discussing and pushing back on changes before making them
|
|
* Core team should lead by example through their tone and language
|
|
* Take the time to thank and point out good code changes
|
|
* Using softer language like "please" and "what do you think?" goes a long way
|
|
towards making others feel like colleagues working towards a common goal
|
|
|
|
### Workflow
|
|
|
|
* Authors should request review from riot-web team by default (if someone on the
|
|
team is clearly the expert in an area, a direct review request to them may be
|
|
more appropriate)
|
|
* Reviewers should remove the team review request and request review from
|
|
themselves when starting a review to avoid double review
|
|
* Authors should link to other layers of their PR in their PR before requesting
|
|
review. Reviewers might be coming from different places and could miss other
|
|
required PRs.
|
|
* Avoid force pushing to a PR after first round of review
|
|
* Use the GitHub default of merge commits when landing (avoid alternate options
|
|
like squash or rebase)
|
|
* PR author merges after review (assuming they have write access)
|
|
* Assign issues only when in progress to indicate to others what can be picked
|
|
up
|
|
|
|
## Design and Product Review
|
|
|
|
We want to ensure that all changes to Riot fit with our design and product
|
|
vision. We often request review from those teams so they can provide their
|
|
perspective.
|
|
|
|
In more detail, our usual process for changes that affect the UI or alter user
|
|
functionality is:
|
|
|
|
* For changes that will go live when merged, always flag Design and Product
|
|
teams as appropriate
|
|
* For changes guarded by a feature flag, Design and Product review is not
|
|
required (though may still be useful) since we can continue tweaking
|
|
|
|
As it can be difficult to review design work from looking at just the changed
|
|
files in a PR, authors should be prepared for Design and / or Product teams to
|
|
request a link to an ad-hoc build of Riot (hosted anywhere) that can be used for
|
|
the review. In the future, we [hope to automate
|
|
this](https://github.com/vector-im/riot-web/issues/12624) for every PR.
|