nixpkgs/doc/reviewing-contributions.xml

<chapter xmlns="http://docbook.org/ns/docbook"
        xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"
        xmlns:xi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XInclude"
        version="5.0"
        xml:id="sec-reviewing-contributions">
 <title>Reviewing contributions</title>
 <warning>
  <para>
   The following section is a draft, and the policy for reviewing is still being
   discussed in issues such as <link
	   xlink:href="https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/issues/11166">#11166
   </link> and <link
	   xlink:href="https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/issues/20836">#20836
   </link>.
  </para>
 </warning>
 <para>
  The nixpkgs project receives a fairly high number of contributions via
  GitHub pull-requests. Reviewing and approving these is an important task and
  a way to contribute to the project.
 </para>
 <para>
  The high change rate of nixpkgs makes any pull request that remains open for
  too long subject to conflicts that will require extra work from the submitter
  or the merger. Reviewing pull requests in a timely manner and being
  responsive to the comments is the key to avoid these. GitHub provides sort
  filters that can be used to see the
  <link
    xlink:href="https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pulls?q=is%3Apr+is%3Aopen+sort%3Aupdated-desc">most
  recently</link> and the
  <link
    xlink:href="https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pulls?q=is%3Apr+is%3Aopen+sort%3Aupdated-asc">least
  recently</link> updated pull-requests. We highly encourage looking at
  <link xlink:href="https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pulls?q=is%3Apr+is%3Aopen+review%3Anone+status%3Asuccess+-label%3A%222.status%3A+work-in-progress%22+no%3Aproject+no%3Aassignee+no%3Amilestone">
  this list of ready to merge, unreviewed pull requests</link>.
 </para>
 <para>
  When reviewing a pull request, please always be nice and polite.
  Controversial changes can lead to controversial opinions, but it is important
  to respect every community member and their work.
 </para>
 <para>
  GitHub provides reactions as a simple and quick way to provide
  feedback to pull-requests or any comments. The thumb-down reaction should be
  used with care and if possible accompanied with some explanation so the
  submitter has directions to improve their contribution.
 </para>
 <para>
  Pull-request reviews should include a list of what has been reviewed in a
  comment, so other reviewers and mergers can know the state of the review.
 </para>
 <para>
  All the review template samples provided in this section are generic and
  meant as examples. Their usage is optional and the reviewer is free to adapt
  them to their liking.
 </para>
 <section>
  <title>Package updates</title>

  <para>
   A package update is the most trivial and common type of pull-request. These
   pull-requests mainly consist of updating the version part of the package
   name and the source hash.
  </para>

  <para>
   It can happen that non-trivial updates include patches or more complex
   changes.
  </para>

  <para>
   Reviewing process:
  </para>

  <itemizedlist>
   <listitem>
    <para>
     Add labels to the pull-request. (Requires commit rights)
    </para>
    <itemizedlist>
     <listitem>
      <para>
       <literal>8.has: package (update)</literal> and any topic label that fit
       the updated package.
      </para>
     </listitem>
    </itemizedlist>
   </listitem>
   <listitem>
    <para>
     Ensure that the package versioning fits the guidelines.
    </para>
   </listitem>
   <listitem>
    <para>
     Ensure that the commit text fits the guidelines.
    </para>
   </listitem>
   <listitem>
    <para>
     Ensure that the package maintainers are notified.
    </para>
    <itemizedlist>
     <listitem>
      <para>
       <link xlink:href="https://help.github.com/articles/about-codeowners/">CODEOWNERS</link>
       will make GitHub notify users based on the submitted changes, but it can
       happen that it misses some of the package maintainers.
      </para>
     </listitem>
    </itemizedlist>
   </listitem>
   <listitem>
    <para>
     Ensure that the meta field information is correct.
    </para>
    <itemizedlist>
     <listitem>
      <para>
       License can change with version updates, so it should be checked to match
       the upstream license.
      </para>
     </listitem>
     <listitem>
      <para>
       If the package has no maintainer, a maintainer must be set. This can be
       the update submitter or a community member that accepts to take
       maintainership of the package.
      </para>
     </listitem>
    </itemizedlist>
   </listitem>
   <listitem>
    <para>
     Ensure that the code contains no typos.
    </para>
   </listitem>
   <listitem>
    <para>
     Building the package locally.
    </para>
    <itemizedlist>
     <listitem>
      <para>
       Pull-requests are often targeted to the master or staging branch, and
       building the pull-request locally when it is submitted can trigger
       many source builds.
      </para>
      <para>
       It is possible to rebase the changes on nixos-unstable or
       nixpkgs-unstable for easier review by running the following commands
       from a nixpkgs clone.
<screen>
$ git remote add channels https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs-channels.git <co
  xml:id='reviewing-rebase-1' />
$ git fetch channels nixos-unstable <co xml:id='reviewing-rebase-2' />
$ git fetch origin pull/PRNUMBER/head <co xml:id='reviewing-rebase-3' />
$ git rebase --onto nixos-unstable BASEBRANCH FETCH_HEAD <co
  xml:id='reviewing-rebase-4' />
</screen>
       <calloutlist>
        <callout arearefs='reviewing-rebase-1'>
         <para>
          This should be done only once to be able to fetch channel branches
          from the nixpkgs-channels repository.
         </para>
        </callout>
        <callout arearefs='reviewing-rebase-2'>
         <para>
          Fetching the nixos-unstable branch.
         </para>
        </callout>
        <callout arearefs='reviewing-rebase-3'>
         <para>
          Fetching the pull-request changes, <varname>PRNUMBER</varname> is the
          number at the end of the pull-request title and
          <varname>BASEBRANCH</varname> the base branch of the pull-request.
         </para>
        </callout>
        <callout arearefs='reviewing-rebase-4'>
         <para>
          Rebasing the pull-request changes to the nixos-unstable branch.
         </para>
        </callout>
       </calloutlist>
      </para>
     </listitem>
     <listitem>
      <para>
       The <link xlink:href="https://github.com/madjar/nox">nox</link> tool can
       be used to review a pull-request content in a single command. It doesn't
       rebase on a channel branch so it might trigger multiple source builds.
       <varname>PRNUMBER</varname> should be replaced by the number at the end
       of the pull-request title.
      </para>
<screen>
$ nix-shell -p nox --run "nox-review -k pr PRNUMBER"
</screen>
     </listitem>
    </itemizedlist>
   </listitem>
   <listitem>
    <para>
     Running every binary.
    </para>
   </listitem>
  </itemizedlist>

  <example>
   <title>Sample template for a package update review</title>
<screen>
##### Reviewed points

- [ ] package name fits guidelines
- [ ] package version fits guidelines
- [ ] package build on ARCHITECTURE
- [ ] executables tested on ARCHITECTURE
- [ ] all depending packages build

##### Possible improvements

##### Comments

</screen>
  </example>
 </section>
 <section>
  <title>New packages</title>

  <para>
   New packages are a common type of pull-requests. These pull requests
   consists in adding a new nix-expression for a package.
  </para>

  <para>
   Reviewing process:
  </para>

  <itemizedlist>
   <listitem>
    <para>
     Add labels to the pull-request. (Requires commit rights)
    </para>
    <itemizedlist>
     <listitem>
      <para>
       <literal>8.has: package (new)</literal> and any topic label that fit the
       new package.
      </para>
     </listitem>
    </itemizedlist>
   </listitem>
   <listitem>
    <para>
     Ensure that the package versioning is fitting the guidelines.
    </para>
   </listitem>
   <listitem>
    <para>
     Ensure that the commit name is fitting the guidelines.
    </para>
   </listitem>
   <listitem>
    <para>
     Ensure that the meta field contains correct information.
    </para>
    <itemizedlist>
     <listitem>
      <para>
       License must be checked to be fitting upstream license.
      </para>
     </listitem>
     <listitem>
      <para>
       Platforms should be set or the package will not get binary substitutes.
      </para>
     </listitem>
     <listitem>
      <para>
       A maintainer must be set, this can be the package submitter or a
       community member that accepts to take maintainership of the package.
      </para>
     </listitem>
    </itemizedlist>
   </listitem>
   <listitem>
    <para>
     Ensure that the code contains no typos.
    </para>
   </listitem>
   <listitem>
    <para>
     Ensure the package source.
    </para>
    <itemizedlist>
     <listitem>
      <para>
       Mirrors urls should be used when available.
      </para>
     </listitem>
     <listitem>
      <para>
       The most appropriate function should be used (e.g. packages from GitHub
       should use <literal>fetchFromGitHub</literal>).
      </para>
     </listitem>
    </itemizedlist>
   </listitem>
   <listitem>
    <para>
     Building the package locally.
    </para>
   </listitem>
   <listitem>
    <para>
     Running every binary.
    </para>
   </listitem>
  </itemizedlist>

  <example>
   <title>Sample template for a new package review</title>
<screen>
##### Reviewed points

- [ ] package path fits guidelines
- [ ] package name fits guidelines
- [ ] package version fits guidelines
- [ ] package build on ARCHITECTURE
- [ ] executables tested on ARCHITECTURE
- [ ] `meta.description` is set and fits guidelines
- [ ] `meta.license` fits upstream license
- [ ] `meta.platforms` is set
- [ ] `meta.maintainers` is set
- [ ] build time only dependencies are declared in `nativeBuildInputs`
- [ ] source is fetched using the appropriate function
- [ ] phases are respected
- [ ] patches that are remotely available are fetched with `fetchpatch`

##### Possible improvements

##### Comments

</screen>
  </example>
 </section>
 <section>
  <title>Module updates</title>

  <para>
   Module updates are submissions changing modules in some ways. These often
   contains changes to the options or introduce new options.
  </para>

  <para>
   Reviewing process
  </para>

  <itemizedlist>
   <listitem>
    <para>
     Add labels to the pull-request. (Requires commit rights)
    </para>
    <itemizedlist>
     <listitem>
      <para>
       <literal>8.has: module (update)</literal> and any topic label that fit
       the module.
      </para>
     </listitem>
    </itemizedlist>
   </listitem>
   <listitem>
    <para>
     Ensure that the module maintainers are notified.
    </para>
    <itemizedlist>
     <listitem>
      <para>
       <link xlink:href="https://help.github.com/articles/about-codeowners/">CODEOWNERS</link>
       will make GitHub notify users based on the submitted changes, but it can
       happen that it misses some of the package maintainers.
      </para>
     </listitem>
    </itemizedlist>
   </listitem>
   <listitem>
    <para>
     Ensure that the module tests, if any, are succeeding.
    </para>
   </listitem>
   <listitem>
    <para>
     Ensure that the introduced options are correct.
    </para>
    <itemizedlist>
     <listitem>
      <para>
       Type should be appropriate (string related types differs in their
       merging capabilities, <literal>optionSet</literal> and
       <literal>string</literal> types are deprecated).
      </para>
     </listitem>
     <listitem>
      <para>
       Description, default and example should be provided.
      </para>
     </listitem>
    </itemizedlist>
   </listitem>
   <listitem>
    <para>
     Ensure that option changes are backward compatible.
    </para>
    <itemizedlist>
     <listitem>
      <para>
       <literal>mkRenamedOptionModule</literal> and
       <literal>mkAliasOptionModule</literal> functions provide way to make
       option changes backward compatible.
      </para>
     </listitem>
    </itemizedlist>
   </listitem>
   <listitem>
    <para>
     Ensure that removed options are declared with
     <literal>mkRemovedOptionModule</literal>
    </para>
   </listitem>
   <listitem>
    <para>
     Ensure that changes that are not backward compatible are mentioned in
     release notes.
    </para>
   </listitem>
   <listitem>
    <para>
     Ensure that documentations affected by the change is updated.
    </para>
   </listitem>
  </itemizedlist>

  <example>
   <title>Sample template for a module update review</title>
<screen>
##### Reviewed points

- [ ] changes are backward compatible
- [ ] removed options are declared with `mkRemovedOptionModule`
- [ ] changes that are not backward compatible are documented in release notes
- [ ] module tests succeed on ARCHITECTURE
- [ ] options types are appropriate
- [ ] options description is set
- [ ] options example is provided
- [ ] documentation affected by the changes is updated

##### Possible improvements

##### Comments

</screen>
  </example>
 </section>
 <section>
  <title>New modules</title>

  <para>
   New modules submissions introduce a new module to NixOS.
  </para>

  <itemizedlist>
   <listitem>
    <para>
     Add labels to the pull-request. (Requires commit rights)
    </para>
    <itemizedlist>
     <listitem>
      <para>
       <literal>8.has: module (new)</literal> and any topic label that fit the
       module.
      </para>
     </listitem>
    </itemizedlist>
   </listitem>
   <listitem>
    <para>
     Ensure that the module tests, if any, are succeeding.
    </para>
   </listitem>
   <listitem>
    <para>
     Ensure that the introduced options are correct.
    </para>
    <itemizedlist>
     <listitem>
      <para>
       Type should be appropriate (string related types differs in their
       merging capabilities, <literal>optionSet</literal> and
       <literal>string</literal> types are deprecated).
      </para>
     </listitem>
     <listitem>
      <para>
       Description, default and example should be provided.
      </para>
     </listitem>
    </itemizedlist>
   </listitem>
   <listitem>
    <para>
     Ensure that module <literal>meta</literal> field is present
    </para>
    <itemizedlist>
     <listitem>
      <para>
       Maintainers should be declared in <literal>meta.maintainers</literal>.
      </para>
     </listitem>
     <listitem>
      <para>
       Module documentation should be declared with
       <literal>meta.doc</literal>.
      </para>
     </listitem>
    </itemizedlist>
   </listitem>
   <listitem>
    <para>
     Ensure that the module respect other modules functionality.
    </para>
    <itemizedlist>
     <listitem>
      <para>
       For example, enabling a module should not open firewall ports by
       default.
      </para>
     </listitem>
    </itemizedlist>
   </listitem>
  </itemizedlist>

  <example>
   <title>Sample template for a new module review</title>
<screen>
##### Reviewed points

- [ ] module path fits the guidelines
- [ ] module tests succeed on ARCHITECTURE
- [ ] options have appropriate types
- [ ] options have default
- [ ] options have example
- [ ] options have descriptions
- [ ] No unneeded package is added to environment.systemPackages
- [ ] meta.maintainers is set
- [ ] module documentation is declared in meta.doc

##### Possible improvements

##### Comments

</screen>
  </example>
 </section>
 <section>
  <title>Other submissions</title>

  <para>
   Other type of submissions requires different reviewing steps.
  </para>

  <para>
   If you consider having enough knowledge and experience in a topic and would
   like to be a long-term reviewer for related submissions, please contact the
   current reviewers for that topic. They will give you information about the
   reviewing process. The main reviewers for a topic can be hard to find as
   there is no list, but checking past pull-requests to see who reviewed or
   git-blaming the code to see who committed to that topic can give some hints.
  </para>

  <para>
   Container system, boot system and library changes are some examples of the
   pull requests fitting this category.
  </para>
 </section>
 <section>
  <title>Merging pull-requests</title>

  <para>
   It is possible for community members that have enough knowledge and
   experience on a special topic to contribute by merging pull requests.
  </para>

  <para>
   TODO: add the procedure to request merging rights.
  </para>

<!--
The following paragraph about how to deal with unactive contributors is just a
proposition and should be modified to what the community agrees to be the right
policy.

<para>Please note that contributors with commit rights unactive for more than
  three months will have their commit rights revoked.</para>
-->

  <para>
   In a case a contributor leaves definitively the Nix community, he
   should create an issue or post on <link
   xlink:href="https://discourse.nixos.org">Discourse</link> with
   references of packages and modules he maintains so the
   maintainership can be taken over by other contributors.
  </para>
 </section>
</chapter>