1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
|
# Code Review Guidelines
## Getting your merge request reviewed, approved, and merged
There are a few rules to get your merge request accepted:
1. Your merge request should only be **merged by a [maintainer][team]**.
1. If your merge request includes only backend changes [^1], it must be
**approved by a [backend maintainer][team]**.
1. If your merge request includes only frontend changes [^1], it must be
**approved by a [frontend maintainer][team]**.
1. If your merge request includes frontend and backend changes [^1], it must
be **approved by a [frontend and a backend maintainer][team]**.
1. To lower the amount of merge requests maintainers need to review, you can
ask or assign any [reviewers][team] for a first review.
1. If you need some guidance (e.g. it's your first merge request), feel free
to ask one of the [Merge request coaches][team].
1. The reviewer will assign the merge request to a maintainer once the
reviewer is satisfied with the state of the merge request.
## Best practices
This guide contains advice and best practices for performing code review, and
having your code reviewed.
All merge requests for GitLab CE and EE, whether written by a GitLab team member
or a volunteer contributor, must go through a code review process to ensure the
code is effective, understandable, and maintainable.
Any developer can, and is encouraged to, perform code review on merge requests
of colleagues and contributors. However, the final decision to accept a merge
request is up to one the project's maintainers, denoted on the
[team page](https://about.gitlab.com/team).
### Everyone
- Accept that many programming decisions are opinions. Discuss tradeoffs, which
you prefer, and reach a resolution quickly.
- Ask questions; don't make demands. ("What do you think about naming this
`:user_id`?")
- Ask for clarification. ("I didn't understand. Can you clarify?")
- Avoid selective ownership of code. ("mine", "not mine", "yours")
- Avoid using terms that could be seen as referring to personal traits. ("dumb",
"stupid"). Assume everyone is attractive, intelligent, and well-meaning.
- Be explicit. Remember people don't always understand your intentions online.
- Be humble. ("I'm not sure - let's look it up.")
- Don't use hyperbole. ("always", "never", "endlessly", "nothing")
- Be careful about the use of sarcasm. Everything we do is public; what seems
like good-natured ribbing to you and a long-time colleague might come off as
mean and unwelcoming to a person new to the project.
- Consider one-on-one chats or video calls if there are too many "I didn't
understand" or "Alternative solution:" comments. Post a follow-up comment
summarizing one-on-one discussion.
- If you ask a question to a specific person, always start the comment by
mentioning them; this will ensure they see it if their notification level is
set to "mentioned" and other people will understand they don't have to respond.
### Having your code reviewed
Please keep in mind that code review is a process that can take multiple
iterations, and reviewers may spot things later that they may not have seen the
first time.
- The first reviewer of your code is _you_. Before you perform that first push
of your shiny new branch, read through the entire diff. Does it make sense?
Did you include something unrelated to the overall purpose of the changes? Did
you forget to remove any debugging code?
- Be grateful for the reviewer's suggestions. ("Good call. I'll make that
change.")
- Don't take it personally. The review is of the code, not of you.
- Explain why the code exists. ("It's like that because of these reasons. Would
it be more clear if I rename this class/file/method/variable?")
- Extract unrelated changes and refactorings into future merge requests/issues.
- Seek to understand the reviewer's perspective.
- Try to respond to every comment.
- Let the reviewer select the "Resolve discussion" buttons.
- Push commits based on earlier rounds of feedback as isolated commits to the
branch. Do not squash until the branch is ready to merge. Reviewers should be
able to read individual updates based on their earlier feedback.
### Reviewing code
Understand why the change is necessary (fixes a bug, improves the user
experience, refactors the existing code). Then:
- Try to be thorough in your reviews to reduce the number of iterations.
- Communicate which ideas you feel strongly about and those you don't.
- Identify ways to simplify the code while still solving the problem.
- Offer alternative implementations, but assume the author already considered
them. ("What do you think about using a custom validator here?")
- Seek to understand the author's perspective.
- If you don't understand a piece of code, _say so_. There's a good chance
someone else would be confused by it as well.
- After a round of line notes, it can be helpful to post a summary note such as
"LGTM :thumbsup:", or "Just a couple things to address."
- Assign the merge request to the author if changes are required following your
review.
- Set the milestone before merging a merge request.
- Avoid accepting a merge request before the job succeeds. Of course, "Merge
When Pipeline Succeeds" (MWPS) is fine.
- If you set the MR to "Merge When Pipeline Succeeds", you should take over
subsequent revisions for anything that would be spotted after that.
- Consider using the [Squash and
merge][squash-and-merge] feature when the merge request has a lot of commits.
[squash-and-merge]: https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/user/project/merge_requests/squash_and_merge.html#squash-and-merge
### The right balance
One of the most difficult things during code review is finding the right
balance in how deep the reviewer can interfere with the code created by a
reviewee.
- Learning how to find the right balance takes time; that is why we have
reviewers that become maintainers after some time spent on reviewing merge
requests.
- Finding bugs and improving code style is important, but thinking about good
design is important as well. Building abstractions and good design is what
makes it possible to hide complexity and makes future changes easier.
- Asking the reviewee to change the design sometimes means the complete rewrite
of the contributed code. It's usually a good idea to ask another maintainer or
reviewer before doing it, but have the courage to do it when you believe it is
important.
- There is a difference in doing things right and doing things right now.
Ideally, we should do the former, but in the real world we need the latter as
well. A good example is a security fix which should be released as soon as
possible. Asking the reviewee to do the major refactoring in the merge
request that is an urgent fix should be avoided.
- Doing things well today is usually better than doing something perfectly
tomorrow. Shipping a kludge today is usually worse than doing something well
tomorrow. When you are not able to find the right balance, ask other people
about their opinion.
### Credits
Largely based on the [thoughtbot code review guide].
[thoughtbot code review guide]: https://github.com/thoughtbot/guides/tree/master/code-review
---
[Return to Development documentation](README.md)
|
