2022-12-05 22:36:22 +01:00
|
|
|
# Commit discipline
|
2016-06-26 18:57:27 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We follow the Git project's own commit discipline practice of "Each
|
|
|
|
commit is a minimal coherent idea". This discipline takes a bit of work,
|
|
|
|
but it makes it much easier for code reviewers to spot bugs, and
|
|
|
|
makes the commit history a much more useful resource for developers
|
|
|
|
trying to understand why the code works the way it does, which also
|
|
|
|
helps a lot in preventing bugs.
|
|
|
|
|
2024-05-04 01:35:15 +02:00
|
|
|
Use `git rebase -i` as much as you need to shape your commit structure. See the
|
|
|
|
[Git guide](../git/overview.md) for useful resources on mastering Git.
|
|
|
|
|
2023-05-25 20:56:36 +02:00
|
|
|
## Each commit must be coherent
|
2016-06-26 18:57:27 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2021-08-20 22:54:08 +02:00
|
|
|
- It should pass tests (so test updates needed by a change should be
|
|
|
|
in the same commit as the original change, not a separate "fix the
|
|
|
|
tests that were broken by the last commit" commit).
|
2024-05-04 01:35:15 +02:00
|
|
|
- It should not make Zulip worse. For example, it is fine to add backend
|
|
|
|
capabilities without adding a frontend to access them. It's not fine to add a
|
|
|
|
frontend component with no backend to make it work.
|
2021-08-20 22:54:08 +02:00
|
|
|
- It should be safe to deploy individually, or explain in detail in
|
|
|
|
the commit message as to why it isn't (maybe with a [manual] tag).
|
|
|
|
So implementing a new API endpoint in one commit and then adding the
|
|
|
|
security checks in a future commit should be avoided -- the security
|
|
|
|
checks should be there from the beginning.
|
|
|
|
- Error handling should generally be included along with the code that
|
|
|
|
might trigger the error.
|
|
|
|
- TODO comments should be in the commit that introduces the issue or
|
|
|
|
the functionality with further work required.
|
2016-06-26 18:57:27 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2023-05-25 20:56:36 +02:00
|
|
|
## Commits should generally be minimal
|
2016-06-26 18:57:27 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2024-05-04 01:35:15 +02:00
|
|
|
Whenever possible, find chunks of complexity that you can separate from the
|
|
|
|
rest of the project.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- If you need to refactor code, add tests for existing functionality,
|
|
|
|
rename variables or functions, or make other changes that do not
|
|
|
|
change the functionality of the product, make those changes into a
|
|
|
|
series of preparatory commits that can be merged independently of
|
|
|
|
building the feature itself.
|
2021-08-20 22:54:08 +02:00
|
|
|
- Moving code from one file to another should be done in a separate
|
|
|
|
commits from functional changes or even refactoring within a file.
|
|
|
|
- 2 different refactorings should be done in different commits.
|
|
|
|
- 2 different features should be done in different commits.
|
|
|
|
- If you find yourself writing a commit message that reads like a list
|
|
|
|
of somewhat dissimilar things that you did, you probably should have
|
|
|
|
just done multiple commits.
|
2016-06-26 18:57:27 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2023-05-25 20:56:36 +02:00
|
|
|
### When not to be overly minimal
|
2016-06-26 18:57:27 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2021-08-20 22:54:08 +02:00
|
|
|
- For completely new features, you don't necessarily need to split out
|
|
|
|
new commits for each little subfeature of the new feature. E.g., if
|
|
|
|
you're writing a new tool from scratch, it's fine to have the
|
|
|
|
initial tool have plenty of options/features without doing separate
|
|
|
|
commits for each one. That said, reviewing a 2000-line giant blob of
|
|
|
|
new code isn't fun, so please be thoughtful about submitting things
|
|
|
|
in reviewable units.
|
|
|
|
- Don't bother to split backend commits from frontend commits, even
|
|
|
|
though the backend can often be coherent on its own.
|
2016-06-26 18:57:27 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2023-05-25 20:56:36 +02:00
|
|
|
## Write a clean commit history
|
2016-06-26 18:57:27 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2021-08-20 22:54:08 +02:00
|
|
|
- Overly fine commits are easy to squash later, but not vice versa.
|
|
|
|
So err toward small commits, and the code reviewer can advise on
|
|
|
|
squashing.
|
|
|
|
- If a commit you write doesn't pass tests, you should usually fix
|
|
|
|
that by amending the commit to fix the bug, not writing a new "fix
|
|
|
|
tests" commit on top of it.
|
2016-06-26 18:57:27 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Zulip expects you to structure the commits in your pull requests to form
|
2021-08-20 21:53:28 +02:00
|
|
|
a clean history before we will merge them. It's best to write your
|
2016-06-26 18:57:27 +02:00
|
|
|
commits following these guidelines in the first place, but if you don't,
|
2020-02-11 22:17:46 +01:00
|
|
|
you can always fix your history using `git rebase -i` (more on that
|
|
|
|
[here](../git/fixing-commits.md)).
|
2016-06-26 18:57:27 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2017-03-27 23:25:43 +02:00
|
|
|
Never mix multiple changes together in a single commit, but it's great
|
|
|
|
to include several related changes, each in their own commit, in a
|
2021-08-20 21:53:28 +02:00
|
|
|
single pull request. If you notice an issue that is only somewhat
|
2017-03-27 23:25:43 +02:00
|
|
|
related to what you were working on, but you feel that it's too minor
|
|
|
|
to create a dedicated pull request, feel free to append it as an
|
|
|
|
additional commit in the pull request for your main project (that
|
|
|
|
commit should have a clear explanation of the bug in its commit
|
2021-08-20 21:53:28 +02:00
|
|
|
message). This way, the bug gets fixed, but this independent change
|
|
|
|
is highlighted for reviewers. Or just create a dedicated pull request
|
|
|
|
for it. Whatever you do, don't squash unrelated changes together in a
|
2017-03-27 23:25:43 +02:00
|
|
|
single commit; the reviewer will ask you to split the changes out into
|
|
|
|
their own commits.
|
|
|
|
|
2016-06-26 18:57:27 +02:00
|
|
|
It can take some practice to get used to writing your commits with a
|
|
|
|
clean history so that you don't spend much time doing interactive
|
|
|
|
rebases. For example, often you'll start adding a feature, and discover
|
2017-09-18 05:40:08 +02:00
|
|
|
you need to do a refactoring partway through writing the feature. When that
|
2017-06-07 23:12:49 +02:00
|
|
|
happens, we recommend you stash your partial feature, do the refactoring,
|
|
|
|
commit it, and then unstash and finish implementing your feature.
|
2016-06-26 18:57:27 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2023-01-04 03:06:51 +01:00
|
|
|
For additional guidance on how to structure your commits (and why it matters!),
|
|
|
|
check out GitHub's excellent [blog post](https://github.blog/2022-06-30-write-better-commits-build-better-projects).
|
|
|
|
|
2020-08-11 01:47:54 +02:00
|
|
|
## Commit messages
|
2016-06-26 18:57:27 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2023-03-21 00:25:20 +01:00
|
|
|
Commit messages have two parts:
|
2017-06-07 23:16:28 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2023-03-21 00:25:20 +01:00
|
|
|
1. A **summary**, which is a brief one-line overview of the changes.
|
|
|
|
2. A **description**, which provides further details on the changes,
|
|
|
|
the motivation behind them, and why they improve the project.
|
2021-08-20 22:54:08 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2023-03-21 00:25:20 +01:00
|
|
|
In Zulip, commit summaries have a two-part structure:
|
2017-06-07 23:16:28 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2023-05-29 18:12:01 +02:00
|
|
|
1. A one or two word description of the part of the codebase changed
|
2023-03-21 00:25:20 +01:00
|
|
|
by the commit.
|
|
|
|
2. A short sentence summarizing your changes.
|
2019-12-05 02:01:39 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2023-03-21 00:25:20 +01:00
|
|
|
Here is an
|
|
|
|
[example](https://github.com/zulip/zulip/commit/084dd216f017c32e15c1b13469bcbc928cd0bce9)
|
|
|
|
of a good commit message:
|
2019-12-05 02:01:39 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2023-03-21 00:25:20 +01:00
|
|
|
> tests: Remove ignored realm_str parameter from message send test.
|
|
|
|
>
|
|
|
|
> In commit
|
|
|
|
> [8181ec4](https://github.com/zulip/zulip/commit/8181ec4b56abf598223112e7bc65ce20f3a6236b),
|
|
|
|
> we removed the `realm_str` as a parameter for `send_message_backend`. This
|
|
|
|
> removes a missed test that included this as a parameter for that
|
|
|
|
> endpoint/function.
|
2017-06-07 23:16:28 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2023-03-21 00:25:20 +01:00
|
|
|
The commit message is a key piece of how you communicate with reviewers and
|
|
|
|
future contributors, and is no less important than the code you write. This
|
|
|
|
section provides detailed guidance on how to write an excellent commit message.
|
2019-12-05 02:01:39 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Tip:** You can set up [Zulip's Git pre-commit hook][commit-hook] to
|
2023-03-21 00:25:20 +01:00
|
|
|
automatically catch common commit message mistakes.
|
2019-12-05 02:01:39 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2022-02-16 01:39:15 +01:00
|
|
|
[commit-hook]: ../git/zulip-tools.md#set-up-git-repo-script
|
2019-12-05 02:01:39 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2023-03-21 00:25:20 +01:00
|
|
|
### Commit summary, part 1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The first part of the commit summary should only be 1-2 **lower-case**
|
|
|
|
words, followed by a `:`, describing what the part of the product the
|
|
|
|
commit changes. These prefixes are essential for maintainers to
|
|
|
|
efficiently skim commits when doing release management or
|
|
|
|
investigating regressions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common examples include: settings, message feed, compose, left
|
|
|
|
sidebar, right sidebar, recent (for **Recent conversations**), search,
|
|
|
|
markdown, tooltips, popovers, drafts, integrations, email, docs, help,
|
|
|
|
and api docs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When it's possible to do so concisely, it's helpful to be a little more
|
|
|
|
specific, e.g., emoji, spoilers, polls. However, a simple `settings:` is better
|
|
|
|
than a lengthy description of a specific setting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If your commit doesn't cleanly map to a part of the product, you might
|
|
|
|
use something like "css" for CSS-only changes, or the name of the file
|
|
|
|
or technical subsystem principally being modified (not the full path,
|
|
|
|
so `realm_icon`, not `zerver/lib/realm_icon.py`).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is no need to be creative here! If one of the examples above
|
|
|
|
fits your commit, use it. Consistency makes it easier for others to
|
|
|
|
scan commit messages to find what they need.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Additional tips:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- Use lowercase (e.g., "settings", not "Settings").
|
2023-05-29 18:12:01 +02:00
|
|
|
- If it's hard to find a 1-2 word description of the part of the codebase
|
2023-03-21 00:25:20 +01:00
|
|
|
affected by your commit, consider again whether you have structured your
|
|
|
|
commits well.
|
|
|
|
- Never use a generic term like "bug", "fix", or "refactor".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Commit summary, part 2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is a **complete sentence** that briefly summarizes your changes. There are
|
|
|
|
a few rules to keep in mind:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- Start the sentence with an
|
2024-07-04 12:33:43 +02:00
|
|
|
[imperative](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperative_mood) verb, e.g.,
|
2023-03-21 00:25:20 +01:00
|
|
|
"fix", "add", "change", "rename", etc.
|
|
|
|
- Use proper capitalization and punctuation.
|
|
|
|
- Avoid abbreviations and acronyms.
|
|
|
|
- Be concise, and don't include unnecessary details. For example, "Change X and
|
|
|
|
update tests/docs," would be better written as just, "Change X," since (as
|
|
|
|
discussed above) _every_ commit is expected to update tests and documentation
|
|
|
|
as needed.
|
2023-05-29 18:12:01 +02:00
|
|
|
- Make it readable to someone who is familiar with Zulip's codebase, but hasn't
|
2023-03-21 00:25:20 +01:00
|
|
|
been involved with the effort you're working on.
|
2023-05-01 07:50:14 +02:00
|
|
|
- Use no more than 72 characters for the entire commit summary (parts 1 and 2).
|
2023-03-21 00:25:20 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Examples of good commit summaries
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- `provision: Improve performance of installing npm.`
|
|
|
|
- `channel: Discard all HTTP responses while reloading.`
|
|
|
|
- `integrations: Add GitLab integration.`
|
|
|
|
- `typeahead: Rename compare_by_popularity() for clarity.`
|
|
|
|
- `typeahead: Convert to ES6 module.`
|
|
|
|
- `tests: Compile Handlebars templates with source maps.`
|
|
|
|
- `blueslip: Add feature to time common operations.`
|
|
|
|
- `gather_subscriptions: Fix exception handling bad input.`
|
2024-05-20 18:14:34 +02:00
|
|
|
- `channel_settings: Fix save/discard widget on narrow screens.`
|
2023-03-21 00:25:20 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#### Detailed example
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- **Good summary**: "gather_subscriptions: Fix exception handling bad input."
|
|
|
|
- **Not so good alternatives**:
|
|
|
|
- "gather_subscriptions was broken": This doesn't explain how it was broken, and
|
|
|
|
doesn't follow the format guidelines for commit summaries.
|
|
|
|
- "Fix exception when given bad input": It's impossible to tell what part of the
|
|
|
|
codebase was changed.
|
|
|
|
- Not using the imperative:
|
|
|
|
- "gather_subscriptions: Fixing exception when given bad input."
|
|
|
|
- "gather_subscriptions: Fixed exception when given bad input."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Commit description
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The body of the commit message should explain why and how the change
|
|
|
|
was made. Like a good code comment, it should provide context and
|
|
|
|
motivation that will help both a reviewer now, and a developer looking
|
|
|
|
at your changes a year later, understand the motivation behind your
|
|
|
|
decisions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Many decisions may be documented in multiple places (for example, both
|
|
|
|
in a commit message and a code comment). The general rules of thumb are:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- Use the commit message for information that's relevant for someone
|
|
|
|
trying to understand the change this commit is making, or the difference
|
|
|
|
between the old version of the code and the new version. In particular,
|
|
|
|
this includes information about why the new version of the code is better than,
|
|
|
|
or not worse than, the old version.
|
|
|
|
- Use code comments, or the code itself, for information that's relevant
|
|
|
|
for someone trying to read and understand the new version of the code
|
|
|
|
in the future, without comparing it to the old version.
|
|
|
|
- If the information is helpful for reviewing your work (for example,
|
|
|
|
an alternative approach that you rejected or are considering,
|
|
|
|
something you noticed that seemed weird, or an error you aren't sure
|
|
|
|
you resolved correctly), include it in the PR description /
|
|
|
|
discussion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As an example, if you have a question that you expect to be resolved
|
|
|
|
during the review process, put it in a PR comment attached to a
|
|
|
|
relevant part of the changes. When the question is resolved, remember
|
|
|
|
to update code comments and/or the commit description to document the
|
|
|
|
reasoning behind the decisions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are some cases when the best approach is improving the code or commit
|
|
|
|
structure, not writing up details in a comment or a commit message. For example:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- If the information is the description of a calculation or function,
|
|
|
|
consider the abstractions you're using. Often, a better name for a
|
|
|
|
variable or function is a better path to readable code than writing
|
|
|
|
a prose explanation.
|
|
|
|
- If the information describes an additional change that you made while working
|
|
|
|
on the commit, consider whether it is separable from the rest of the changes.
|
|
|
|
If it is, it should probably be moved to its own commit, with its own commit
|
|
|
|
message explaining it. Reviewing and integrating a series of several
|
|
|
|
well-written commits is far easier than reviewing those same changes in a
|
|
|
|
single commit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When you fix a GitHub issue, [mark that you have fixed the issue in
|
|
|
|
your commit
|
|
|
|
message](https://help.github.com/en/articles/closing-issues-via-commit-messages)
|
|
|
|
so that the issue is automatically closed when your code is merged,
|
|
|
|
and the commit has a permanent reference to the issue(s) that it
|
|
|
|
resolves. Zulip's preferred style for this is to have the final
|
|
|
|
paragraph of the commit message read, e.g., `Fixes #123.`.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Note:** Avoid using a phrase like `Partially fixes #1234.`, as
|
|
|
|
GitHub's regular expressions ignore the "partially" and close the
|
|
|
|
issue. `Fixes part of #1234.` is a good alternative.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#### The purpose of the commit description
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The commit summary and description should, taken together, explain to another
|
|
|
|
Zulip developer (who may not be deeply familiar with the specific
|
|
|
|
files/subsystems you're changing) why this commit improves the project. This
|
|
|
|
means explaining both what it accomplishes, and why it won't break things one
|
|
|
|
might worry about it breaking.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- Include any important investigation/reasoning that another developer
|
|
|
|
would need to understand in order to verify the correctness of your
|
|
|
|
change. For example, if you're removing a parameter from a function,
|
|
|
|
the commit message might say, "It's safe to remove this parameter
|
|
|
|
because it was always False," or, "This behavior needs to be removed
|
|
|
|
because ...". A reviewer will likely check that indeed it was always
|
|
|
|
`False` as part of checking your work -- what you're doing is
|
|
|
|
providing them a chain of reasoning that they can verify.
|
|
|
|
- Provide background context. A good pattern in a commit message
|
|
|
|
description is, "Previously, when X happened, this caused Y to
|
|
|
|
happen, which resulted in ...", followed by a description of the
|
|
|
|
negative outcome.
|
|
|
|
- Don't include details that are obvious from looking at the diff for
|
|
|
|
the commit, such as lists of the names of the files or functions
|
|
|
|
that were changed, or the fact that you updated the tests.
|
|
|
|
- Avoid unnecessary personal narrative about the process through which
|
|
|
|
you developed this commit or pull request, like "First I tried X" or
|
|
|
|
"I changed Y".
|
|
|
|
|
2023-05-25 20:57:21 +02:00
|
|
|
#### Mentioning other contributors
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You can
|
|
|
|
[credit](https://docs.github.com/en/pull-requests/committing-changes-to-your-project/creating-and-editing-commits/creating-a-commit-with-multiple-authors)
|
|
|
|
co-authors on a commit by adding a `Co-authored-by:` line after a blank line at
|
|
|
|
the end of your commit message:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Co-authored-by: Greg Price <greg@zulip.com>
|
|
|
|
|
2024-10-18 02:03:57 +02:00
|
|
|
You should always give credit where credit is due. See our [guide on continuing
|
|
|
|
unfinished work](../contributing/continuing-unfinished-work.md) for step-by-step
|
|
|
|
guidance on continuing work someone else has started.
|
|
|
|
|
2023-05-25 20:57:21 +02:00
|
|
|
You can also add other notes, such as `Reported-by:`, `Debugged-by:`, or
|
|
|
|
`Suggested-by:`, but we don't typically do so.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Never @-mention a contributor in a commit message**, as GitHub will turn this into
|
|
|
|
a notification for the person every time a version of the commit is rebased and
|
|
|
|
pushed somewhere. If you want to send someone a notification about a change,
|
|
|
|
@-mention them in the PR thread.
|
|
|
|
|
2023-03-21 00:25:20 +01:00
|
|
|
#### Formatting guidelines
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are a few specific formatting guidelines to keep in mind:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- The commit description should be separated from the commit summary
|
|
|
|
by a blank line. Most tools, including GitHub, will misrender commit
|
|
|
|
messages that don't do this.
|
|
|
|
- Use full sentences and paragraphs, with proper punctuation and
|
|
|
|
capitalization. Paragraphs should be separated with a single blank
|
|
|
|
line.
|
|
|
|
- Be sure to check your description for typos, spelling, and grammar
|
|
|
|
mistakes; commit messages are important technical writing and
|
|
|
|
English mistakes will distract reviewers from your ideas.
|
|
|
|
- Your commit message should be line-wrapped to about 68 characters
|
|
|
|
per line, but no more than 70, so that your commit message will be
|
|
|
|
easy to read in `git log` in a normal terminal. (It's OK for links
|
|
|
|
to be longer -- ignore `gitlint` when it complains about them.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Tip:** You may find it helpful to configure Git to use your preferred editor
|
|
|
|
using the `EDITOR` environment variable or `git config --global core.editor`,
|
|
|
|
and configure the editor to automatically wrap text to 70 or fewer columns per
|
|
|
|
line (all text editors support this).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Examples of good commit messages
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- [A backend testing
|
|
|
|
commit](https://github.com/zulip/zulip/commit/4869e1b0b2bc6d56fcf44b7d0e36ca20f45d0521)
|
|
|
|
- [A development environment provisioning
|
|
|
|
commit](https://github.com/zulip/zulip/commit/cd5b38f5d8bdcc1771ad794f37262a61843c56c0)
|