You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@cloudstack.apache.org by Wilder Rodrigues <WR...@schubergphilis.com> on 2015/06/03 10:07:22 UTC
[DISCUSS] Template to be used for Pull Requests
Hi all,
Since I became committer I have been doing a bit more of reviews/tests on PRs with the goal to increase CloudStack quality. Sometimes it’s a bit difficult to review/test a PR due to lack of informations concerning the author's environment, tests that were executes, steps to tests the PR, etc. So, here I come, with a proposal to have a template for PRs.
A PR should contain:
* A title including the ACS issue ID - if any
* A clear description of what has been fixed and how
* A description of the environment where the PR has been tested by the author of the PR
- KVM/XenServer/HyperV/etc
- Operating System
- Storage type
- Is hypervisor + Manegement Server + Database in the same machine?
* The tests that have been executed on that same environment by the author of the PR
- Full Maven build including tests execution?
- New unit tests added? (only if Java code was changed)
- New integration tests added/needed?
- Any integration test executed? If so, which ones?
- Any manual tests?
* Proposal of the steps to be taken by the reviewers of the PR in order to test it
- How to reproduce the behvaiour before the the PR
- How to test the changes after applyting the PR
The list above might look a bit too much. But this will help the reviewers to get confidence on the changes being proposed.
In addition, I would like to suggest that if a PR does not contain at least:
- test environment details
- full Maven build + unit tests
- manual tests to prove that the fix works
- it should not be merged - unless the change is about a typo or a shell script line that can be tested on a terminal console.
What are your thoughts on that?
Cheers,
Wilder
Re: [DISCUSS] Template to be used for Pull Requests
Posted by Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com>.
Wilder, Your report have been very extensive. they are useful for the
impressive works you contribute. maybe they are a bit overwhelming for the
beginner that contributes little improvements. I would like to change the *
and - list item denoters into + or - to signify optionality. I think for a
simple fix (typo's and such) at the most 3 +s should remain.
You overall idea is good and the frustration from which it arose very valid.
€0,02
Op wo 3 jun. 2015 om 10:07 schreef Wilder Rodrigues <
WRodrigues@schubergphilis.com>:
> Hi all,
>
> Since I became committer I have been doing a bit more of reviews/tests on
> PRs with the goal to increase CloudStack quality. Sometimes it’s a bit
> difficult to review/test a PR due to lack of informations concerning the
> author's environment, tests that were executes, steps to tests the PR, etc.
> So, here I come, with a proposal to have a template for PRs.
>
> A PR should contain:
>
> * A title including the ACS issue ID - if any
> * A clear description of what has been fixed and how
> * A description of the environment where the PR has been tested by the
> author of the PR
> - KVM/XenServer/HyperV/etc
> - Operating System
> - Storage type
> - Is hypervisor + Manegement Server + Database in the same machine?
>
> * The tests that have been executed on that same environment by the author
> of the PR
> - Full Maven build including tests execution?
> - New unit tests added? (only if Java code was changed)
> - New integration tests added/needed?
> - Any integration test executed? If so, which ones?
> - Any manual tests?
>
> * Proposal of the steps to be taken by the reviewers of the PR in order to
> test it
> - How to reproduce the behvaiour before the the PR
> - How to test the changes after applyting the PR
>
> The list above might look a bit too much. But this will help the reviewers
> to get confidence on the changes being proposed.
>
> In addition, I would like to suggest that if a PR does not contain at
> least:
> - test environment details
> - full Maven build + unit tests
> - manual tests to prove that the fix works
> - it should not be merged - unless the change is about a typo or a shell
> script line that can be tested on a terminal console.
>
> What are your thoughts on that?
>
> Cheers,
> Wilder