Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
398 lines (283 loc) · 24.6 KB

CONTRIBUTING.md

File metadata and controls

398 lines (283 loc) · 24.6 KB
Raw

Contributing

Thank you for considering making contributions to the Cosmos SDK and related repositories!

Contributing to this repo can mean many things, such as participating in discussion or proposing code changes. To ensure a smooth workflow for all contributors, the general procedure for contributing has been established:

  1. Start by browsing new issues and discussions. If you are looking for something interesting or if you have something in your mind, there is a chance it had been discussed.
  2. Determine whether a GitHub issue or discussion is more appropriate for your needs:
    1. If want to propose something new that requires specification or an additional design, or you would like to change a process, start with a new discussion. With discussions, we can better handle the design process using discussion threads. A discussion usually leads to one or more issues.
    2. If the issue you want addressed is a specific proposal or a bug, then open a new issue.
    3. Review existing issues to find an issue you'd like to help with.
  3. Participate in thoughtful discussion on that issue.
  4. If you would like to contribute:
    1. Ensure that the proposal has been accepted.
    2. Ensure that nobody else has already begun working on this issue. If they have, make sure to contact them to collaborate.
    3. If nobody has been assigned to the issue and you would like to work on it, make a comment on the issue to inform the community of your intentions to begin work.
  5. To submit your work as a contribution to the repository follow standard GitHub best practices. See pull request guideline below.

Note 1: For very small or blatantly obvious problems, you are not required to an open issue to submit a PR, but be aware that for more complex problems/features, if a PR is opened before an adequate design discussion has taken place in a GitHub issue, that PR runs a high likelihood of being rejected.

Note 2: At this time, we will not be accepting contributions that only fix spelling or grammar errors in documentation, code or elsewhere. The repository has a nightly job that spell checks all files and will automatically open PRs for any spelling errors.

Teams Dev Calls

The Cosmos SDK has many stakeholders contributing and shaping the project. The Core SDK team is composed of Binary Builders & Zondax. Any long-term contributors and additional maintainers from other projects are welcome. We use self-organizing principles to coordinate and collaborate across organizations in structured "EPIC" that focus on specific problem domains or architectural components of the Cosmos SDK.

The developers work in sprints, which are available in a GitHub Project. The current EPICs are pinned at the top of the issues list.

The important development announcements are shared on Discord in the #dev-announcements channel.

To synchronize we have few major meetings:

  • Cosmos SDK Standup on Monday and Thursday at 14:00 UTC (limited participation to core devs).
  • Cosmos SDK Community Call on the second Thursday of the month at 13:00 UTC.

If you would like to join one of the community call, then please request to join the Cosmos SDK Google Group.

Architecture Decision Records (ADR)

When proposing an architecture decision for the Cosmos SDK, please start by opening an issue. Once the proposal has been discussed and there is rough alignment on a high-level approach to the design, the ADR creation process can begin. We are following this process to ensure all involved parties are in agreement before any party begins coding the proposed implementation. If you would like to see examples of how these are written, please refer to the current ADRs.

Development Procedure

  • The latest state of development is on main.
  • main must never fail make lint test test-race.
  • No --force onto main (except when reverting a broken commit, which should seldom happen).
  • Create a branch to start work:
    • Fork the repo (core developers must create a branch directly in the Cosmos SDK repo), branch from the HEAD of main, make some commits, and submit a PR to main.
    • For core developers working within the cosmos-sdk repo, follow branch name conventions to ensure a clear ownership of branches: {moniker}/{issue#}-branch-name.
    • See Branching Model for more details.
  • Be sure to run make format before every commit. The easiest way to do this is have your editor run it for you upon saving a file (most of the editors will do it anyway using a pre-configured setup of the programming language mode). Additionally, be sure that your code is lint compliant by running make lint-fix. A convenience git pre-commit hook that runs the formatters automatically before each commit is available in the contrib/githooks/ directory.
  • Follow the CODING GUIDELINES, which defines criteria for designing and coding a software.

Code is merged into main through pull request procedure.

Testing

Tests can be executed by running make test at the top level of the Cosmos SDK repository.

Pull Requests

Before submitting a pull request:

  • merge the latest main git merge origin/main,
  • run make lint test to ensure that all checks and tests pass.

Then:

  1. If you have something to show, start with a Draft PR. It's good to have early validation of your work and we highly recommend this practice. A Draft PR also indicates to the community that the work is in progress. Draft PRs also helps the core team provide early feedback and ensure the work is in the right direction.
  2. When the code is complete, change your PR from Draft to Ready for Review.
  3. Go through the actions for each checkbox present in the PR template description. The PR actions are automatically provided for each new PR.
  4. Be sure to include a relevant changelog entry in the Unreleased section of CHANGELOG.md (see file for log format). The entry should be on top of all others changes in the section.

PRs must have a category prefix that is based on the type of changes being made (for example, fix, feat, refactor, docs, and so on). The type must be included in the PR title as a prefix (for example, fix: <description>). This convention ensures that all changes that are committed to the base branch follow the Conventional Commits specification. Additionally, each PR should only address a single issue.

Pull requests are merged automatically using the automerge functionality of Github.

NOTE: when merging, GitHub will squash commits and rebase on top of the main.

Pull Request Templates

There are three PR templates. The default template is used for PR types such as fix, feat,docs, and refactor, among others. These are just a few examples. For more details, please refer to the default template.

Pull Request Accountability

Owner

The pull request owner is responsible for ensuring that the PR is ready for review and merging after reviews are delivered. This includes:

  • Ensuring that the PR is up to date with the latest changes in the main branch.
  • Ensuring that the PR passes all checks.
  • Ensuring that the PR has a clear description of the changes.
  • Ensuring that the PR has a clear description of the testing strategy.
  • Ensuring that the PR has a clear description of the impact of the changes.
  • Ensuring that the PR has a clear description of the risks associated with the changes.
  • Ensuring that the PR has a clear description of the next steps.
  • Ensuring that the PR has a clear description of the dependencies.

The pull request owner is responsible for assigning reviewers on the team, responding to feedback, and ensuring that the PR is merged in a timely manner. If a PR is reviewed, but an approval is not given by the reviewer the pull request owner is responsible for addressing the feedback, ensuring that the PR is ready for review again and notifying the reviewers that the PR is ready for review.

Once approvals have been given by the reviewer(s) it is the responsibility of the pull request owner to merge the PR.

Reviewer

Reviewers or other contributors should not merge main into the PR unless discussed with the pull request owner and ownership has been transferred.

The reviewer is responsible for ensuring that the PR meets the following criteria:

Code Quality
  • Readability: Ensure the code is easy to read and understand. Check for clear and concise variable names, appropriate comments, and overall readability.
  • Coding Standards: Verify adherence to the team’s coding standards and style guides. This includes indentation, spacing, naming conventions, and file organization.
  • Code Structure: Check for proper use of functions, classes, and modules. Ensure the code is organized logically and is modular.
  • Complexity: Look for complex code that could be simplified. Ensure there are no nested loops.
Functionality
  • Correctness: Verify that the code performs the intended function correctly. Check the logic and ensure that edge cases are handled.
  • Bug Fixes: Ensure any reported bugs are adequately addressed. Verify that the fixes resolve the issues without introducing new bugs.
  • Feature Implementation: Confirm that new features are implemented as specified in the requirements or user stories.
Testing
  • Test Coverage: Check that there are sufficient unit tests, integration tests and E2E tests for the new code. Ensure tests cover both normal and edge cases.
  • Test Quality: Review the quality of the tests. Ensure they are meaningful and not just checking trivial cases.
  • Passing Tests: Verify that all tests pass, including any new tests added with the PR.
Documentation
  • Code Comments: Ensure there are comments explaining non-obvious parts of the code.
  • API Documentation: Verify that any new or modified public methods, classes, or modules are properly documented.
  • User Documentation: Check for updates to user documentation, if the PR includes changes that affect the user experience.
Performance
  • Efficiency: Ensure the code performs efficiently and does not introduce performance bottlenecks.
  • Resource Usage: Check for appropriate use of resources, such as memory and CPU. Ensure there are no memory leaks or excessive resource consumption.

External Contributors

External contributors can not manage getting reviewers and assigning reviewers to PRs. When an external contribution requires reviewers, they will be assigned in the team meeting or adhoc based on current workloads. One of the reviewers will be assigned the owner of the PR and will be responsible for ensuring the PR is ready for review and merging after reviews are delivered. The owner has the right to overtake the contribution if the external contributor is not responsive or the PR is not moving forward.

Requesting Reviews

In order to accommodate the review process, the author of the PR must complete the author checklist (from the pull request template) to the best of their abilities before marking the PR as "Ready for Review". If you would like to receive early feedback on the PR, open the PR as a "Draft" and leave a comment in the PR indicating that you would like early feedback and tagging whoever you would like to receive feedback from.

Codeowners are marked automatically as the reviewers.

All PRs require at least two review approvals before they can be merged (one review might be acceptable in the case of minor changes to docs changes that do not affect production code). Each PR template has a reviewers checklist that must be completed before the PR can be merged. Each reviewer is responsible for all checked items unless they have indicated otherwise by leaving their handle next to specific items. In addition, use the following review explanations:

  • LGTM without an explicit approval means that the changes look good, but you haven't thoroughly reviewed the reviewer checklist items.
  • Approval means that you have completed some or all of the reviewer checklist items. If you only reviewed selected items, you must add your handle next to the items that you have reviewed. In addition, follow these guidelines:
    • You must also think through anything which ought to be included but is not
    • You must think through whether any added code could be partially combined (DRYed) with existing code
    • You must think through any potential security issues or incentive-compatibility flaws introduced by the changes
    • Naming must be consistent with conventions and the rest of the codebase
    • Code must live in a reasonable location, considering dependency structures (for example, not importing testing modules in production code, or including example code modules in production code).
    • If you approve the PR, you are responsible for any issues mentioned here and any issues that should have been addressed after thoroughly reviewing the reviewer checklist items in the pull request template.
  • If you sat down with the PR submitter and did a pairing review, add this information in the Approval or your PR comments.
  • If you are only making "surface level" reviews, submit notes as a comment review.

Updating Documentation

If you open a PR on the Cosmos SDK, it is mandatory to update the relevant documentation in /docs.

  • If your change relates to the core SDK (baseapp, store, ...), be sure to update the content in docs/basics/, docs/core/ and/or docs/building-modules/ folders.
  • If your changes relate to the core of the CLI (not specifically to module's CLI/Rest), then modify the content in the docs/run-node/ folder.
  • If your changes relate to a module, then be sure to update the module's spec in x/{moduleName}/README.md.

When writing documentation, follow the Documentation Writing Guidelines.

RFC & ADR

Within the Cosmos SDK we have two forms of documenting decisions, Request For Comment (RFC) & Architecture Design Record (ADR). They perform two different functions. The process for assessing if something needs an RFC is located in the respective folders:

Dependencies

We use Go Modules to manage dependency versions.

The main branch of every Cosmos repository should just build with go get, which means they should be kept up-to-date with their dependencies, so we can get away with telling people they can just go get our software.

Since some dependencies are not under our control, a third party may break our build, in which case we can fall back on go mod tidy -v.

go.work

The Cosmos SDK is a multi-module repo, for this reason, the use of a go.work file is handy. We provide a go.work.example that contains all the modules used in the SDK. Do note that contributions modifying multiple Go modules should be submitted as separate PRs, this allows us to tag the changes and avoid replaces. For consistency between our CI and the local tests, GOWORK=off is set in the Makefile. This means that the go.work file is not used when using make test or any other make command.

go.mod

When extracting a package to its own go modules, some extra steps are required, for keeping our CI checks and Dev UX:

  • Add a CHANGELOG.md / README.md under the new package folder
  • Add the package in labeler.yml
  • Add the package in go.work.example
  • Add weekly dependabot checks (see dependabot.yml)
  • Add tests to github workflow test.yml (under submodules)
  • Configure SonarCloud
    • Add sonar-projects.properties (see math sonar-project.properties for example)
    • Add a GitHub Workflow entry for running the scans (see test.yml)
    • Ask the team to add the project to SonarCloud
  • (optional) Configure a cosmossdk.io vanity url by submitting a PR to cosmos/vanity.

Protobuf

We use Protocol Buffers along with gogoproto to generate code for use in Cosmos SDK.

For deterministic behavior around Protobuf tooling, everything is containerized using Docker. Make sure to have Docker installed on your machine, or head to Docker's website to install it.

For formatting code in .proto files, you can run make proto-format command.

For linting and checking breaking changes, we use buf. You can use the commands make proto-lint and make proto-check-breaking to respectively lint your proto files and check for breaking changes.

To generate the protobuf stubs, you can run make proto-gen.

We also added the make proto-all command to run all the above commands sequentially.

In order for imports to properly compile in your IDE, you may need to manually set your protobuf path in your IDE's workspace settings/config.

For example, in vscode your .vscode/settings.json should look like:

{
    "protoc": {
        "options": [
        "--proto_path=${workspaceRoot}/proto",
        ]
    }
}

Branching Model and Release

User-facing repos should adhere to the trunk based development branching model: https://trunkbaseddevelopment.com. User branches should start with a user name, example: {moniker}/{issue#}-branch-name.

The Cosmos SDK repository is a multi Go module repository. It means that we have more than one Go module in a single repository.

The Cosmos SDK utilizes semantic versioning.

PR Targeting

Ensure that you base and target your PR on the main branch.

All feature additions and all bug fixes must be targeted against main. Exception is for bug fixes which are only related to a released version. In that case, the related bug fix PRs must target against the release branch.

If needed, we backport a commit from main to a release branch (excluding consensus breaking feature, API breaking and similar).

Code Owner Membership

In the ethos of open-source projects, and out of necessity to keep the code alive, the core contributor team will strive to permit special repo privileges to developers who show an aptitude towards developing with this code base.

Several different kinds of privileges may be granted however most common privileges to be granted are merge rights to either part of, or the entirety of the code base (through the GitHub CODEOWNERS file). The onboarding process for new code owners is as follows: On a bi-monthly basis (or more frequently if agreeable) all the existing code owners will privately convene to discuss potential new candidates as well as the potential for existing code-owners to exit or "pass on the torch". This private meeting is to be held as a phone/video meeting.

Subsequently after the meeting, and pending final approval from the ICF, one of the existing code owners should open a PR modifying the CODEOWNERS file. The other code owners should then all approve this PR to publicly display their support.

Only if unanimous consensus is reached among all the existing code-owners will an invitation be extended to a new potential-member. Likewise, when an existing member is suggested to be removed/or have their privileges reduced, the member in question must agree to the decision for their removal or else no action should be taken. If however, a code-owner is demonstrably shown to intentionally have had acted maliciously or grossly negligent, code-owner privileges may be stripped with no prior warning or consent from the member in question.

Other potential removal criteria:

  • Missing 3 scheduled meetings results in ICF evaluating whether the member should be removed / replaced
  • Violation of Code of Conduct

Earning this privilege should be considered to be no small feat and is by no means guaranteed by any quantifiable metric. Serving as a code owner is a symbol of great trust from the community of this project.

Concept & Feature Approval Process

The process for how Cosmos SDK maintainers take features and ADRs from concept to release is broken up into three distinct stages: Strategy Discovery, Concept Approval, and Implementation & Release Approval

Strategy Discovery

  • Develop long term priorities, strategy and roadmap for the Cosmos SDK
  • Release committee not yet defined as there is already a roadmap that can be used for the time being

Concept Approval

  • Architecture Decision Records (ADRs) may be proposed by any contributors or maintainers of the Cosmos SDK, and should follow the guidelines outlined in the ADR Creation Process
  • After proposal, a time bound period for Request for Comment (RFC) on ADRs commences
  • ADRs are intended to be iterative, and may be merged into main while still in a Proposed status

Time Bound Period

  • Once a PR for an ADR is opened, reviewers are expected to perform a first review within 1 week of pull request being open
  • Time bound period for individual ADR Pull Requests to be merged should not exceed 2 weeks
  • Total time bound period for an ADR to reach a decision (ABANDONED | ACCEPTED | REJECTED) should not exceed 4 weeks

If an individual Pull Request for an ADR needs more time than 2 weeks to reach resolution, it should be merged in current state (Draft or Proposed), with its contents updated to summarize the current state of its discussion.

If an ADR is taking longer than 4 weeks to reach a final conclusion, there should be a synchronous meeting with reviewers and all stake holders

  • unanimously setting a new time bound period for this ADR
  • making changes to the Concept Approval Process (as outlined here)
  • making changes to the members of the Concept Approval Committee

Implementation & Release Approval

The following process should be adhered to both for implementation PRs corresponding to ADRs, as well as for PRs made as part of a release process:

  • Code reviewers should ensure the PR does exactly what the ADR said it should
  • Code reviewers should have more senior engineering capability
  • 1/2 approval is required from the primary repo maintainers in CODEOWNERS

Note: For any major release series denoted as a "Stable Release" (e.g. v0.42 "Stargate"), a separate release committee is often established. Stable Releases, and their corresponding release committees are documented separately in Stable Release Policy*