ExternalVendorCode/openmct
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/nasa/openmct.git synced 2024-12-19 21:27:52 +00:00
Code Issues Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

[Code Style] Add CONTRIBUTING.md

Browse Source 
Add CONTRIBUTING.md to formalize changes to code style
requirements for WTD-1482.
This commit is contained in:
Victor Woeltjen 2015-08-17 15:22:26 -07:00
parent a4e2aba6dc
commit 841273edf6
1 changed files with 298 additions and 0 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

298
CONTRIBUTING.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,298 @@
# Contributing to Open MCT Web
This document describes the process of contributing to Open MCT Web as well
as the standards that will be applied when evaluating contributions.
Please be aware that additional agreements will be necessary before we can
accept changes from external contributors.
## Summary
The short version:
1. Write your contribution.
2. Make sure your contribution meets code, test, and commit message
standards as described below.
3. Submit a pull request from a topic branch back to `master`. Include a check
list, as described below. (Optionally, assign this to a specific member
for review.)
4. Respond to any discussion. When the reviewer decides it's ready, they
will merge back `master` and fill out their own check list.
## Contribution Process
Open MCT Web uses git for software version control, and for branching and
merging. The central repository is at
https://github.com/nasa/openmctweb.git.
### Roles
References to roles are made throughout this document. These are not intended
to reflect titles or long-term job assignments; rather, these are used as
descriptors to refer to members of the development team performing tasks in
the check-in process. These roles are:
* _Author_: The individual who has made changes to files in the software
repository, and wishes to check these in.
* _Reviewer_: The individual who reviews changes to files before they are
checked in.
* _Integrator_: The individual who performs the task of merging these files.
Usually the reviewer.
### Branching
Three basic types of branches may be included in the above repository:
1. Master branch.
2. Topic branches.
3. Developer branches.
Branches which do not fit into the above categories may be created and used
during the course of development for various reasons, such as large-scale
refactoring of code or implementation of complex features which may cause
instability. In these exceptional cases it is the responsibility of the
developer who initiates the task which motivated this branching to
communicate to the team the role of these branches and any associated
procedures for the duration of their use.
#### Master Branch
The role of the `master` branches is to represent the latest
"ready for test" version of the software. Source code on the master
branch has undergone peer review, and will undergo regular automated
testing with notification on failure. Master branches may be unstable
(particularly for recent features), but the intent is for the stability of
any features on master branches to be non-decreasing. It is the shared
responsibility of authors, reviewers, and integrators to ensure this.
#### Topic Branches
Topic branches are used by developers to perform and record work on issues.
Topic branches need not necessarily be stable, even when pushed to the
central repository; in fact, the practice of making incremental commits
while working on an issue and pushing these to the central repository is
encouraged, to avoid lost work and to share work-in-progress. (Small commits
also help isolate changes, which can help in identifying which change
introduced a defect, particularly when that defect went unnoticed for some
time, e.g. using `git bisect`.)
Topic branches should be named according to their corresponding issue
identifiers, all lower case, without hyphens. (e.g. branch mct9 would refer
to issue #9.)
In some cases, work on an issue may warrant the use of multiple divergent
branches; for instance, when a developer wants to try more than one solution
and compare them, or when a "dead end" is reached and an initial approach to
resolving an issue needs to be abandoned. In these cases, a short suffix
should be added to the additional branches; this may be simply a single
character (e.g. wtd481b) or, where useful, a descriptive term for what
distinguishes the branches (e.g. wtd481verbose). It is the responsibility of
the author to communicate which branch is intended to be merged to both the
reviewer and the integrator.
#### Developer Branches
Developer branches are any branches used for purposes outside of the scope
of the above; e.g. to try things out, or maintain a "my latest stuff"
branch that is not delayed by the review and integration process. These
may be pushed to the central repository, and may follow any naming convention
desired so long as the owner of the branch is identifiable, and so long as
the name chosen could not be mistaken for a topic or master branch.
### Merging
When development is complete on an issue, the first step toward merging it
back into the master branch is to file a Pull Request. The contributions
should meet code, test, and commit message standards as described below,
and the pull request should include a completed author checklist, also
as described below. Pull requests may be assigned to specific team
members when appropriate (e.g. to draw to a specific person's attention.)
Code review should take place using discussion features within the pull
request. When the reviewer is satisfied, they should add a comment to
the pull request containing the reviewer checklist (from below) and complete
the merge back to the master branch.
## Standards
Contributions to Open MCT Web are expected to meet the following standards.
In addition, reviewers should use general discretion before accepting
changes.
### Code Standards
JavaScript sources in Open MCT Web must satisfy JSLint under its default
settings. This is verified by the command line build.
#### Code Guidelines
JavaScript sources in Open MCT Web should:
* Use four spaces for indentation. Tabs should not be used.
* Include JSDoc for any exposed API (e.g. public methods, constructors.)
* Include non-JSDoc comments as-needed for explaining private variables,
methods, or algorithms when they are non-obvious.
* Define one public class per script, expressed as a constructor function
returned from an AMD-style module.
* Follow “Java-like” naming conventions. These includes:
* Classes should use camel case, first letter capitalized
(e.g. SomeClassName.)
* Methods, variables, fields, and function names should use camel case,
first letter lower-case (e.g. someVariableName.) Constants
(variables or fields which are meant to be declared and initialized
statically, and never changed) should use only capital letters, with
underscores between words (e.g. SOME_CONSTANT.)
* File name should be the name of the exported class, plus a .js extension
(e.g. SomeClassName.js)
* Avoid anonymous functions, except when functions are short (a few lines)
and/or their inclusion makes sense within the flow of the code
(e.g. as arguments to a forEach call.)
* Avoid deep nesting (especially of functions), except where necessary
(e.g. due to closure scope.)
* End with a single new-line character.
* Expose public methods by declaring them on the class's prototype.
* Within a given function's scope, do not mix declarations and imperative
code, and present these in the following order:
* First, variable declarations and initialization.
* Second, function declarations.
* Third, imperative statements.
* Finally, the returned value.
Deviations from Open MCT Web code style guidelines require two-party agreement,
typically from the author of the change and its reviewer.
#### Code Example
```js
/*global define*/
/**
* Bundles should declare themselves as namespaces in whichever source
* file is most like the "main point of entry" to the bundle.
* @namespace some/bundle
*/
define(
['./OtherClass'],
function (OtherClass) {
"use strict";
/**
* A summary of how to use this class goes here.
*
* @constructor
* @memberof some/bundle
*/
function ExampleClass() {
}
// Methods which are not intended for external use should
// not have JSDoc (or should be marked @private)
ExampleClass.prototype.privateMethod = function () {
};
/**
* A summary of this method goes here.
* @param {number} n a parameter
* @returns {number} a return value
*/
ExampleClass.prototype.publicMethod = function (n) {
return n * 2;
}
return ExampleClass;
}
);
```
### Test Standards
Automated testing shall occur whenever changes are merged into the main
development branch and must be confirmed alongside any pull request.
Automated tests are typically unit tests which exercise individual software
components. Tests are subject to code review along with the actual
implementation, to ensure that tests are applicable and useful.
Examples of useful tests:
* Tests which replicate bugs (or their root causes) to verify their
resolution.
* Tests which reflect details from software specifications.
* Tests which exercise edge or corner cases among inputs.
* Tests which verify expected interactions with other components in the
system.
During automated testing, code coverage metrics will be reported. Line
coverage must remain at or above 80%.
### Commit Message Standards
Commit messages should:
* Contain a one-line subject, followed by one line of white space,
followed by one or more descriptive paragraphs, each separated by one
 line of white space.
* Contain a short (usually one word) reference to the feature or subsystem
the commit effects, in square brackets, at the start of the subject line
(e.g. `[Documentation] Draft of check-in process`)
* Contain a reference to a relevant issue number in the body of the commit.
* This is important for traceability; while branch names also provide this,
you cannot tell from looking at a commit what branch it was authored on.
* Describe the change that was made, and any useful rationale therefore.
* Comments in code should explain what things do, commit messages describe
how they came to be done that way.
* Provide sufficient information for a reviewer to understand the changes
made and their relationship to previous code.
Commit messages should not:
* Exceed 54 characters in length on the subject line.
* Exceed 72 characters in length in the body of the commit.
* Except where necessary to maintain the structure of machine-readable or
machine-generated text (e.g. error messages)
See [Contributing to a Project](http://git-scm.com/book/ch5-2.html) from
Pro Git by Shawn Chacon and Ben Straub for a bit of the rationale behind
these standards.
## Issue Reporting
Issues are tracked at https://github.com/nasa/openmctweb/issues
Issues should include:
* A short description of the issue encountered.
* A longer-form description of the issue encountered. When possible, steps to
reproduce the issue.
* When possible, a description of the impact of the issue. What use case does
it impede?
* An assessment of the severity of the issue.
Issue severity is categorized as follows (in ascending order):
* _Trivial_: Minimal impact on the usefulness and functionality of the
software; a "nice-to-have."
* _(Unspecified)_: Major loss of functionality or impairment of use.
* _Critical_: Large-scale loss of functionality or impairment of use,
such that remaining utility becomes marginal.
* _Blocker_: Harmful or otherwise unacceptable behavior. Must fix.
## Check Lists
The following check lists should be completed and attached to pull requests
when they are filed (author checklist) and when they are merged (reviewer
checklist.)
### Author Checklist
1. Changes address original issue?
2. Unit tests included and/or updated with changes?
3. Command line build passes?
4. Expect to pass code review?
### Reviewer Checklist
1. Changes appear to address issue?
2. Appropriate unit tests included?
3. Code style and in-line documentation are appropriate?
4. Commit messages meet standards?