Very good, in addition, we better add some wrong examples and good cases



| |
Kirs
|
|
[email protected]
|

Signature is customized by Netease Mail Master

On 07/02/2020 10:31, Yichao Yang wrote:
Hi,




I agree with you, and I also have some ideas about practice from learning 
Apache Flink Community Specifications. I will go from the generation of an 
issue to the completion of the corresponding PR.




1.Issue




I quite agree with you about issue needs to be labeled, and I think we should 
also pay attention to the information of the issue itself.  The user who 
proposed the issue or the person who answered the issue should help complete 
the detail of issue's description. Git has provided the relevant information 
example need to be filled in when proposing an issue.
Bug type: 
[https://github.com/apache/incubator-dolphinscheduler/issues/new?assignees=&labels=bug&template=bug_report.md&title=%5BBUG%5D+bug+title+]
Feature type: 
[https://github.com/apache/incubator-dolphinscheduler/issues/new?assignees=&labels=new+feature&template=feature_request.md&title=%5BFeature%5D]




Reason: The detailed issue information will help committer to decide whether 
the bug is indeed exists or the feature is valuable, and also will help the 
user quickly locate whether the issue can solve his problem and meet his need.




2.Code




Good code should be of high quality and follow the code style specifications of 
`style/checkstyle.xml`.




Reason: High quality and standard format code will make subsequent maintenance 
easier.




3.Test




Test cases should be of high quality, and it will pass after at least one 
committer reviewed.




Reason: For better robustness of project code and test case code.




4.Commit Message




Commit Message need be filled in as detailed as possible according to the git 
specifications example of the commit message like below. If the commit message 
is incomplete, the corresponding contributor should complete it before PR 
reviewed or merged.




## *Tips*
- *Thanks very much for contributing to Apache DolphinScheduler.*
- *Please review https://dolphinscheduler.apache.org/en-us/community/index.html 
before opening a pull request.*




## What is the purpose of the pull request




*(For example: This pull request adds checkstyle plugin.)*




## Brief change log




*(for example:)*
  - *Add maven-checkstyle-plugin to root pom.xml*




## Verify this pull request




*(Please pick either of the following options)*




This pull request is code cleanup without any test coverage.




*(or)*




This pull request is already covered by existing tests, such as *(please 
describe tests)*.




(or)




This change added tests and can be verified as follows:




*(example:)*




  - *Added dolphinscheduler-dao tests for end-to-end.*
  - *Added CronUtilsTest to verify the change.*
  - *Manually verified the change by testing locally.*








Reason: It is not convenient for users to query the specific implementation of 
some features if there are not specific and detailed commit message. At 
present, although there are relevant git commit message specifications example 
when creating pull requests, most pull requests still have nonstandard commit 
messages.








5.Pull Request




Before completing and submitting PR, a corresponding issue which can track the 
original issue information should be created (roughly divided into feature and 
bug type).




The first is the PR of the `bugfix type`, which should have at least one 
committer to confirm that the bug is indeed exist, and then it needs to be 
assigned to the contributor to complete. When reviewing this PR, the reviewer 
should consider whether this bugfix implementation is the best from a global 
perspective, and check if there are any potential bugs in this implementation.
The second is the PR of the `feature type`, which should have at least one or 
two committers to confirm that the feature is indeed valuable, and then it 
needs to be assigned to the contributor to complete. The PR should be covered 
by detailed test cases.




Reason: At present, some submitted PRs have been submitted without linked 
issues or confirmation from the committer, and if these PRs are confirmed as 
unnecessary, it may waste committer who are reviewing this PR or some 
corresponding contributors time.




If my understanding is wrong, please point it out.




Best regards!
Yichao Yang

Reply via email to