optional reviews are approved
|Deletions are marked like this.||Additions are marked like this.|
|Line 56:||Line 56:|
| '''The coder is responsible for getting his branch through the review
|'''The coder is responsible for getting his branch through the review process'''|
|Line 63:||Line 62:|
| 1. finding a reviewer (ask an on-call reviewer on #launchpad-dev,
or arrange with another reviewer)
|1. finding a reviewer (ask an on-call reviewer on #launchpad-dev, or arrange with another reviewer)|
|Line 71:||Line 69:|
|#launchpad-, ).||#launchpad-dev, review proposals on [[https://code.launchpad.net/launchpad/+activereviews|+activereviews]]).|
|Line 73:||Line 71:|
| * Be clear about things you are
| * Be clear about things you are:
|Line 78:||Line 76:|
|* set the status of the merge proposal (unless other requested reviews are outstanding)||* Set the status of the merge proposal (unless other requested reviews are outstanding)|
|Line 102:||Line 100:|
|There are some parts of the system that we do not currently permit self review on: UI changes and Database changes.||There are some parts of the system that we do not currently permit self review: UI changes and Database changes.|
<<TableOfContents: execution failed [Too many arguments] (see also the log)>>
All changes to Launchpad need to have a merge proposal discussing the change. Read this document carefully for a description of the review process and what it entails. We use Launchpad Code Merge Proposals to manage this process.
What are Pre-Merge Reviews?
Pre-merge reviews are peer reviews of source code modifications. They are one tool for finding defects in code changes to Launchpad. Some knowledge sharing and tips n tricks can be shared via code review as well, though that is a secondary (and low frequency) effect. We do code reviews because it is easy when making non trivial (or even trivial) changes to miss something that a second set of eyeballs will catch. This is particularly the case in some areas of Launchpad which have deep and unobvious coupling.
We recommend that new contributors chat to an experienced developer before committing a lot of time to a change: often a small amount of discussion can make the coding time much shorter and less likely to run into friction within the Launchpad code base or product needs.
If desired, a voice call can be held (e.g. over mumble/skype/voip/pots) - the extra bandwidth of such calls can help avoid misunderstandings and get to the bottom of things much more quickly.
Experienced developers are also able to have such pre implementation calls - and its particularly good to do them when working on an area of the code base they are not already familiar with.
There is a semi formal process for these calls, but it is rarely used. For details see DesignPhoneCall.
Working with PreMergeReviews
For pre-merge reviews to be effective, however, small modifications to the development workflow are required. The main modification is, of course, requesting peer review of your code changes before merging your code into Trunk. The sections below go into the details of how this is best performed. There is a crib sheet for getting a branch merged on the WorkingWithReviews page.
Branch size limits
Complex changes are harder to review and more likely to let harmful changes into the code base. We use a limit of 800 lines for the diff of a branch as a proxy metric for complexity: if the diff of your branch on the merge proposal page has more than 800 lines a reviewer may well ask you to break it into smaller pieces for targeted review. Note that 800 lines is simple a proxy metric: any reviewer can suggest that an overly complex change be split into multiple simpler steps - even if the line count in the diff is much smaller than 800. Conversely much longer branches are ok if they are actually simple : the reviewer and proposer need to talk about such cases.
What are reviewers looking for?
Reviewers are checking both the design of your branch and the quality of the code in it. The best way to understand what a review is looking for is to read TipsForReviewers. (You can also use the CodeReviewChecklist cheat-sheet to do a self-review.)
Use a branch
All changes going into Launchpad require a branch with the change(s) on it, and a merge proposal proposing those changes and explaining what the change wants to accomplish, why its desired and how it goes about it.
You are responsible for your branch
The central rule that is used in the Launchpad review process is:
The coder is responsible for getting his branch through the review process
This means that you, as a coder, are responsible for
- writing the code
- requesting review (use Launchpad Merge Proposals)
- finding a reviewer (ask an on-call reviewer on #launchpad-dev, or arrange with another reviewer)
- dealing with review comments / requests
- landing your change (You may land when the proposal is Approved)
The reviewer, conversely, is responsible only for two important things:
- Reviewing requests in a timely manner, (respond to requests on
#launchpad-dev, review proposals on +activereviews).
- Participating in follow-up discussion once a review is sent.
- Be clear about things you are:
- asking for discussion or consideration
- Set the status of your review
- Set the status of the merge proposal (unless other requested reviews are outstanding)
Before you request a review, you should make sure that make check reports no errors after having first merged trunk, as fixing any broken tests after a review might involve an unnecessary additional review which could have been avoided.
Choosing to self review
If you are a reviewer then you can choose to review your own code under some conditions.
Not all changes benefit from code review / are high enough risk to need formal peer review. For instance (not exhaustive):
- mechanical things (like moving code)
- updating source deps
- typo fixes
- improvements to documentation
For many of these things a review may add value - but less value than doing the review uses up. We want reviews to be a net win for the effort being put into developing Launchpad, and so we should, once we're comfortable people know how things should be, allow them to decide if a particular change is an improvement on its own, or an improvement that also /needs/ other input before landing.
Becoming a fully fledged reviewer is the trigger that marks our comfort that a developer can make this assessment effectively.
There are some parts of the system that we do not currently permit self review: UI changes and Database changes.
To do a self review, do exactly the same thing as normal, but claim the review yourself and vote approve.
Dealing with reviews
A thorough guide to dealing with reviews and finally merging your changes is available at WorkingWithReviews.