How to contribute¶
The purpose of this document is to help contributors get started with the Tezos OCaml codebase.
The simplest way to contribute to Tezos is to report issues that you may find with the software on gitlab. If you are unsure about an issue ask on IRC first and always make sure to search the existing issues before reporting a new one. Some info that are probably important to include in the description: the architecture (e.g. ARM64), the operating system (e.g. Debian Stretch), the network you are connected to (e.g. Zeronet), the binary or component (e.g. tezos-node crashes or rpc X returns Y while Z was expected).
First, make sure that you are proficient enough in OCaml. The community website https://ocaml.org below gives a few pointer for that. In particular, we use a lot of functors, and a few GADTs in the codebase, so you may want to make sure that you master these advanced concepts.
Then, if you don’t know much about the Lwt library, that’s what you want to learn next. This library is used extensively throughout the code base: we use it to handle concurrency. You can use the online documentation. The chapter on concurrency of Real World OCaml has also been ported to Lwt.
Where to start¶
While you familiarize yourself with the basics as suggested above, you can have a look at the software architecture of Tezos. It will give you the main components and their interactions, and links to the documentations for the various parts.
Our git workflow¶
First, the repository is https://gitlab.com/tezos/tezos, the github one is just a clone that exists for historical reasons. So if you want to contribute, simply create an account there.
Then, there are many ways to use Git, here is ours.
We mostly use merge requests for master, meaning that nobody should be pushing
into master directly. Once a merge request is ready, it is reviewed and
approved, then merged using the
--fast-forward option of Git in order to
maintain a linear history without merge commits.
For that to work, it means that merge requests must be direct suffixes
of the master branch. So whenever
origin/master changes, you have to
rebase your branch on it, so that your patches always sit on top of
master. When that happens, you may have to edit your patches during the
rebase, and then use
push -f in your branch to rewrite the history.
We also enforce a few hygiene rules, so make sure your MR respects them:
Prefer small atomic commits over a large one that do many things.
Don’t mix refactoring and new features.
Never mix reindentation, whitespace deletion, or other style changes with actual code changes.
Try as much as possible to make every patch compile, not only the last one.
If you add new functions into a documented interface, don’t forget to extend the documentation for your addition.
For parts that have specifications in the repository (e.g., Michelson), make sure to keep it in sync with the implementation.
Try and mimic the style of commit messages, and for non trivial commits, add an extended commit message.
As per the hygiene of MRs themselves:
Give appropriate titles to the MRs, and when non-trivial add a detailed motivated explanation.
Give meaningful and consistent names to branches.
Don’t forget to put a
WIP:flag when it is a work in progress
Some extra CI tests are only done on demand for branches other that master. You can (should) activate these tests by including keywords in the branch name.
If your MR impacts OPAM packaging, use
opamin the branch name.
At tezos all the code is peer reviewed before getting committed in the master branch. Briefly, a code review is a discussion between two or more developers about changes to the code to address an issue.
Code review can be challenging at times. These are suggestions and common pitfalls a code reviewer should avoid.
Ask questions: How does this function work? If this requirement changes, what else would have to change? How could we make this more maintainable?
Discuss in person for more detailed points: Online comments are useful for focused technical questions. In many occasions it is more productive to discuss it in person rather than in the comments. Similarly, if discussion about a point goes back and forth, It will be often more productive to pick it up in person and finish out the discussion.
Explain reasoning: Sometimes it is best to both ask if there is a better alternative and at the same time justify why a problem in the code is worth fixing. Sometimes it can feel like the changes suggested are nit-picky without context or explanation.
Make it about the code: It is easy to take notes from code reviews personally, especially if we take pride in our work. It is best to make discussions about the code than about the developer. It lowers resistance and it is not about the developer anyway, it is about improving the quality of the code.
Suggest importance of fixes: While offering many suggestions at once, it is important to also clarify that not all of them need to be acted upon and some are more important than others. It gives an important guidance to the developer to improve their work incrementally.
Take the developer’s opinion into consideration: Imposing a particular design choice out of personal preferences and without a real explanation will incentivize the developer to be a passive executor instead of a creative agent.
Do not re-write, remove or re-do all the work: Sometimes it is easier to re-do the work yourself discarding the work of the developer. This can give the impression that the work of the developer is worthless and adds additional work for the reviewer that effectively takes responsibility for the code.
Consider the person you are reviewing: Each developer is a person. If you know the person, consider their personality and experience while reviewing their code. Sometime it is possible with somebody to be more direct and terse, while other people require a more thorough explanation.
Avoid confrontational and authoritative language: The way we communicate has an impact on the receiver. If communicating a problem in the code or a suggestion is the goal, making an effort to remove all possible noise from the message is important. Consider these two statements to communicate about a problem in the code : “This operation is wrong. Please fix it.” and “Doing this operation might result in an error, can you please review it?”. The first one implies you made an error (confrontational), and you should fix it (authority). The second suggest to review the code because there might be a mistake. Despite the message being the same, the recipient might have a different reactions to it and impact on the quality of this work. This general remark is valid for any comment.
Practicalities : how to ask for a code review.¶
Our code review process uses GitLab. First a developer creates a new
branch (it is often useful to prefix the name of the branch with the name of
the developer to make it clear at glance who is working on what : e.g.
john@new-feature). This is a private new branch, the developer is free to
rebase, squash commits, rewrite history (
git push --force), etc. at will.
Once the code is ready to be shared with the rest of the team, the developer opens a Merge Request. It is useful to add a precise description of the code changes while opening the MR and check if those are in line with the initial requirements.
If the code is still not ready to be peer reviewed, but it is merely a
RFC, we prefix the MR with
WIP: (work in progress). This will tell everybody
they can look at the code, comment, but there is still work to be done and the
branch can change and history be rewritten.
Finally, when the code is ready to be audited, we remove the WIP status of the MR and we freeze the branch. From this moment on, the developer will refrain to rewrite history (but he/she can add new commits) and to rebase the branch without notice. At this point the developer waits for the reviewer to add his comments and suggestions.
Gitlab allows to comment both on the code and to add general comments on the MR. Each comment should be addressed by the developer. He/she can add additional commits to address each comment. This incremental approach will make it easier for the reviewer to keep interacting till each discussion is resolved. When the reviewer is satisfied, he/she will mark the discussion resolved.
When all discussions are resolved, the reviewer will rebase the branch, possibly squash commits and merge the MR in the master branch.