Development process » History » Revision 12
Revision 11 (Peter Amstutz, 06/27/2023 03:56 PM) → Revision 12/24 (Tom Clegg, 06/30/2023 07:21 PM)
h1. Summary of Development Process
{{toc}}
h1. Issue descriptions
Consider starting with this outline (omitting empty/obvious sections):
* Background / context
* Current behavior
* Desired improvements
* Proposed implementation
* Exclusions / clarifications
* Open questions
h1. Revision control
h2. Branches
* All development should be done in a branch. The only exception to this should be trivial bug fixes. What is trivial enough to not need review is the judgement of the developer, but when in doubt, ask for a review.
* Each story should be done in its own branch.
* Branch names are "####-story-summary" where #### is the redmine issue number followed by 3 or 4 words that summarize the story.
* Make your local branches track the main repository (@git push -u@)
* Commit regularly, and push your branch to @git.arvados.org@ at the end of each day
** Be paranoid, commits are cheap, pushing your commits to the remote repository is cheap, losing work is expensive
** The preferred format of a commit message on a branch is like this (where 12345 should be replaced by the redmine issue number):
<pre>
12345: One line summary of changes in this commit
More detailed description of changes if relevant.
Arvados-DCO-1.1-Signed-off-by: Your Name <your.email@curii.com>
</pre>
* Don't push uninvited changes to other developer's branches.
** To contribute to another developer's branch, check with them first, or create your own branch ("####-story-summary-ABC" where ABC are your initials) and ask the other developer to merge your branch.
h3. Merging
Branches should not be merged to main until they are ready (see [[Summary of Development Process#Ready to merge|Ready to merge]] below).
# @git remote -v@
** Make sure your @origin@ is git.arvados.org, not github. *Don't push directly to the github main* branch -- let git.arvados.org decide whether it's OK to push to github.
# @git checkout main@
# @git pull --ff-only@
#* This ensures your main is up to date. Otherwise "git push" below might fail, and you'll be backtracking.
# @git merge --no-ff branchname@
#* *The @--no-ff@ part is important!* It ensures there is actually a commit representing this merge. This is your opportunity to record the name of your branch being merged, and the relevant story number. Without it, the git history looks like we all just mysteriously started developing at the tip of your (now unnamed) feature branch.
#* In your merge commit message, *include the relevant story/issue number* (either "@refs #1234@" or "@closes #1234@").
#* In your merge commit message, *include Arvados-DCO-1.1-Signed-off-by line* (i.e. Arvados-DCO-1.1-Signed-off-by: Jane Doe <jane@example.com>)
#* The preferred format of a merge commit message is like this:
<pre>
Merge branch '12345-story-summary'
refs #12345
Arvados-DCO-1.1-Signed-off-by: Your Name <your.email@curii.com>
</pre>
# @git push@
# Look for Jenkins' build results at https://ci.arvados.org .
h3. Rejected pushes
We have a git hook in place that will reject pushes that do not follow these guidelines. The goal of these policies is to ensure a clean linear history of changes to main with consistent cross referencing with issue numbers. These policies apply to the commits listed on "git rev-list --first-parent" when pushing to main, and not to commits on any other branches.
If you try to push a (set of) commit(s) that does not pass mustard, you will get a [POLICY] reject message on stdout, which will also list the offending commit. You can use
git commit --amend
to update the commit message on your last commit, if that is the offending one, or else you can use
git rebase --interactive
to rebase and fix up a commit message on an earlier commit.
h4. All merge commits to main must be from a feature branch into main
Merges that go the other way (from main to a feature branch) that get pushed to main as a result of a fast-forward push will be rejected. In other words: when merging to main, make sure to use --no-ff.
h4. Merges between local and remote main branches will be rejected
Merges between local and remote main branches (generally merges created by "git pull") will be rejected, in order to maintain a linear main history. If this happens, you'll need to reset main to the remote head and then remerge or rebase.
h4. Proper merge message format
All merge commits to main must include the text "Merge branch 'featurebranch'" or they will be rejected.
h4. All commits to main include an issue number or explicitly say "no issue #"
All commits to main (both merges and single parent commits) must
include the text "refs #", "closes #", "fixes #", or "no issue #" or they will be
rejected.
h4. Avoid broken commit messages
Your commit message matches
/Please enter a commit message to explain why this merge is necessary/
h2. Commit logs
See https://dev.arvados.org/projects/arvados/wiki/Coding_Standards
h2. Code review process
Code review has high priority! Branches shouldn't sit around for days waiting for review/merge.
When your branch is ready for review:
# Create/update a review task on the story so it looks like this:
#* subject = "review {branch name}"
#* state = in progress
#* assignee is not null
# Comment on the issue page (not the review page), including
#* branch name
#* commit hash
#* link to Jenkins test run
#* if appropriate, a brief description of what's in the branch (may be omitted if it's already in the commit messages, or if it would just be a copy of the issue subject/description)
# Ping your reviewer (during daily standup, via e-mail and/or via chat).
Doing a review:
# We will discuss/assign the review requests at daily stand-up.
# When you start the review, assign the review task to yourself and move the review task to "in progress" to make sure other people don't duplicate your effort.
# The recommended process for reviewing diffs for a branch is @git diff main...branchname@. The reviewer must make sure that their repository is up to date (or use @git diff origin/main...origin/branchname@). Note the 3 dots (not two)
# After doing a review, write up comments ("fix these problems" or "ready to merge") to the story page, make a note of the git commit revision that was reviewed, assign the review task back to the original developer, and notify the original developer on gitter (or by some other means).
#* In comments, preface each point with "low:", "medium:", or "high:"
#* low: nitpick not necessarily worth changing here if you don't feel like it, but I'm mentioning it to help improve habits
#* medium: suggestion/idea that you should at least acknowledge/respond to, even if we don't end up resolving it here
#* high: we should make sure we both agree on how this is resolved before merging
# The original developer should address any outstanding problems/comments in the code, then write a brief response indicating which points were dealt with or intentionally rejected/not addressed.
# If the response involves more commits, do that, then goto "branch is ready for review". This process iterates until the branch is deemed ready to merge.
# Once the branch is merged, move the "review" task to "resolved".
To list unmerged branches:
* Yours: @git branch --no-merged main@
* Everyone: @git branch -a --no-merged main@
h2. Ready to merge
When merging, both the developer and the reviewer should be convinced that:
* Current/recent main is merged. (Otherwise, you can't predict what merge will do.)
* The branch is pushed to git.arvados.org
* The code is suitably robust.
* The code is suitably readable.
* The code is suitably scalable. For example, client code is not allowed to print or sort unbounded lists. If the code handles a list of items, consider what happens when the list is 10x as large as you expect. What about 100x? A million times?
* The code accomplishes what the story specified. If not, explain why (e.g., the branch is only part of the story, a better solution was found, etc.) in the issue comments
* New API names (methods, attributes, error codes) and behaviors are well chosen. It sucks to change them later, and have to choose between compatibility and greatness.
* Tests that used to pass still pass. (Be extremely careful when altering old tests to make them pass. Do not change existing tests to test new code. Add assertions and write new tests. If you change or remove an existing test, you are breaking behavior that someone already decided was worth testing!)
* Recent clients/SDKs work against the new API server. (Things rarely turn out well when we rely on all clients being updated at once in lockstep with the API server. Our test suite doesn't check this for us yet, so for now we have to pay attention.)
* New/fixed behavior is tested. (Although sometimes we decide not to block on inadequate testing infrastructure... that sucks!)
* New/changed behavior is documented. Search the doc site for relevant keywords to help you find the right sections.
* Whitespace errors are not committed. (Tab characters, spaces at EOL, etc.)
* Git commit messages are descriptive (see [[arvados:Coding Standards]]). If they aren't, this is your last chance to rebase/reword.
h2. Handling pull requests from github
_This is only for contributions by *external contributors*, i.e., people who don't have permission to write directly to arvados.org repositories._
First make sure your main is up to date.
git checkout main; git pull --ff-only
*Option 1:* On the pull request page on github, click the "You can also merge branches on the command line" link to get instructions.
* Don't forget to run tests.
*Option 2:* (a bit shorter)
Say we have "chapmanb wants to merge 1 commit into arvados:main from chapmanb:branchname"
* @git fetch https://github.com/chapmanb/arvados.git branchname:chapmanb-branchname@
* @git merge --no-ff chapmanb-branchname@
* Use the commit message: @Merge branch 'branchname' from github.com/chapmanb. No issue #@
(or @refs #1234@ if there is an issue#)
* Confirm diff: @git diff origin/main main@
* Run tests
* @git push@
h1. Non-fast-forward push
Please don't get into a situation where this is needed.
# On dev box: @git push -f git@github.com:arvados/arvados proper_head_commit:main proper_head_commit:staging@
# On dev box: @git push -f git@git.arvados.org:arvados.git proper_head_commit:main@
# As gitsync@dev.arvados.org: @cd /scm/arvados; git fetch origin; git checkout main; git reset --hard origin/main@
(At least that's what TC did on 2016-03-10. We'll see how it goes.)
h1. Working with external upstream projects
Development process summary (1-6 should follow the guidelines above)
# Each feature is developed in a git branch named @<issue_number>-<summary>@, for example @12521-web-app-config@
# Each feature has a "Review" task. You can see the features and review tasks on the task board.
# When the feature branch is ready for review, update the title of the Review task to say "Review <branchname>" and move it from the *New* column the to *In Progress* column
# The reviewer responds on the issue page with questions or comments
# When the branch is ready to merge, the reviewer will add a comment "Looks Good To Me" (LGTM) on the issue page
# Merge the feature into into the Arvados main branch
# Push the feature branch to github and make a pull request (PR) of the branch against the external project upstream
# Handle code review comments/change requests from the external project team
# Once the external project merges the PR, merge external project upstream main back into the feature branch
# Determine if external project upstream brings any unrelated changes that breaks things for us
# If necessary, make fixes, make a new PR, repeat until stable
# Merge the feature branch (now up-to-date with external project upstream) into Arvados main
This process is intended to let us work independently of how quickly the external project team merges our PRs, while still maximizing the chance that they will be able to accept our PRs by limiting the scope to one feature at a time.
This assumes using git merge commits and avoiding rebases, so we can easily perform merges back and forth between the three branches (Arvados main, feature, external project main).
h1. Scrum
h2. References
These books give us a reference point and vocabulary.
* _Essential Scrum: A Practical Guide to the Most Popular Agile Process_ by Kenneth Rubin
* _User Stories Applied: For Agile Software Development_ by Mike Cohen
h2. Roles
h3. Product Owner
* Decide what goes on the backlog
* Decide backlog priorities
* Work with stakeholders to understand their requirements and priorities
* Encode stakeholder requirements/expectations as user stories
* Lead sprint planning meetings
* Lead release planning meetings
* Lead product planning meetings
* Lead Sprint Kick-off Meetings
* Lead Sprint Review Meetings
* Decide on overall release schedule
h3. Scrum Master
* Lead Daily Scrum Meeting
* Help to eliminate road blocks
* Lead Sprint Retrospective Meetings
* Organize Sprint Schedule
* Help team organize and stay on track with Scrum process
* Teach new engineers how Scrum works
h3. Top stakeholders
* Conduct market research
* Synthesize market research into user stories
* Work with Product Owner to prioritize stories
* Define overall business goals for product
* Work with Product Owner to define overall release cycle
* Organize User Input and dialog with users for engineering team
* Contribute to backlog grooming
* Bring voice of customer into planning process
* Define user personas
* Coordinate user communication
* Develop technical marketing and sales materials
* Assist sales team in presenting product value proposition
* Train sales in technical aspects of the product
h2. Definition of Done
An issue is resolved when:
* Code is written
* Existing code is refactored if appropriate
* Documentation is written/updated
* Acceptance tests are satisfied
* Code is merged in main
* All Jenkins jobs pass (test, build packages, deploy to dev clusters)
* Feature works on applicable dev clusters
h2. Standard Schedule
Sprints are two weeks long. They start and end on Wednesdays.
h3. Key meetings
Every day:
Daily Scrum (15 Minutes)
Who: Development team, product owner. Silent observers welcome.
* What did you do yesterday?
* What will you do today?
* What obstacles are in your way?
h4. Sprint review & kickoff (every 2 weeks on Wednesday):
Sprint Review (30 minutes)
Who: Development team, product owner, stakeholders.
* Demo of each feature built and relationship to stories
* Product owner explains which backlog items are done
* Development team demonstrates the work done, and answers questions about the sprint increment
* Product owner discusses the backlog as it stands. Revise expected completion dates based on recent progress (if needed)
* Review current product status in context of business goals
Sprint Retrospective (30 minutes)
Who: Development team, product owner.
* Review what processes worked well, and what didn't, in the sprint just finished
* Propose and agree to changes to improve future sprints
* Assign action items (meetings/tasks) to implement agreed-upon process improvements
Sprint Kick Off (1 hour)
Who: Development team, product owner.
* Add latest bugs or dependencies to sprint
* Create tasks for each story
* Assign a developer to each task
* Assign an on-call engineer for that sprint who will triage customer support requests
* Check that commitment level is realistic
h4. Planning (alternate Wednesdays mid-sprint)
Roadmap review (1 hour)
Who: Development team, product owner, stakeholders.
* Report high level status of epics
* Prioritize epics
* Define new epics
Sprint Planning (1-2 hours)
Who: Development team, product owner.
* Discuss and get engineering team consensus on feature design & implementation strategy for tasks on current and upcoming epics