1.. _dev-environment-and-tools:
2
3Development Environment and Tools
4#################################
5
6Code Review
7************
8
9GitHub is intended to provide a framework for reviewing every commit before it
10is accepted into the code base. Changes, in the form of Pull Requests (PR) are
11uploaded to GitHub but don't actually become a part of the project until they've
12been reviewed, passed a series of checks (CI), and are approved by maintainers.
13GitHub is used to support the standard open source practice of submitting
14patches, which are then reviewed by the project members before being applied to
15the code base.
16
17Pull requests should be appropriately :ref:`labeled<gh_labels>`,
18and linked to any relevant :ref:`bug or feature tracking issues<bug_reporting>`
19.
20
21The Zephyr project uses GitHub for code reviews and Git tree management. When
22submitting a change or an enhancement to any Zephyr component, a developer
23should use GitHub. GitHub Actions automatically assigns a responsible reviewer
24on a component basis, as defined in the :zephyr_file:`MAINTAINERS.yml` file
25stored with the code tree in the Zephyr project repository. A limited set of
26release managers are allowed to merge a pull request into the main branch once
27reviews are complete.
28
29.. _review_time:
30
31Give reviewers time to review before code merge
32================================================
33
34The Zephyr project is a global project that is not tied to a certain geography
35or timezone. We have developers and contributors from across the globe. When
36changes are proposed using pull request, we need to allow for a minimal review
37time to give developers and contributors the opportunity to review and comment
38on changes. There are different categories of changes and we know that some
39changes do require reviews by subject matter experts and owners of the subsystem
40being changed. Many changes fall under the "trivial" category that can be
41addressed with general reviews and do not need to be queued for a maintainer or
42code-owner review. Additionally, some changes might require further discussions
43and a decision by the TSC or the Security working group. To summarize the above,
44the diagram below proposes minimal review times for each category:
45
46
47.. figure:: pull_request_classes.png
48    :align: center
49    :alt: Pull request classes
50    :figclass: align-center
51
52    Pull request classes
53
54Workflow
55---------
56
57- An author of a change can suggest in his pull-request which category a change
58  should belong to. A project maintainers or TSC member monitoring the inflow of
59  changes can change the label of a pull request by adding a comment justifying
60  why a change should belong to another category.
61- The project will use the label system to categorize the pull requests.
62- Changes should not be merged before the minimal time has expired.
63
64Categories/Labels
65-----------------
66
67Hotfix
68  Any change that is a fix to an issue that blocks developers from doing their
69  daily work, for example CI breakage, Test breakage, Minor documentation fixes
70  that impact the user experience.
71
72  Such fixes can be merged at any time after they have passed CI checks. Depending
73  on the fix, severity, and availability of someone to review them (other than the
74  author) they can be merged with justification without review by one of the
75  project owners.
76
77Trivial
78  Trivial changes are those that appear obvious enough and do not require maintainer or code-owner
79  involvement. Such changes should not change the logic or the design of a
80  subsystem or component. For example a trivial change can be:
81
82  - Documentation changes
83  - Configuration changes
84  - Minor Build System tweaks
85  - Minor optimization to code logic without changing the logic
86  - Test changes and fixes
87  - Sample modifications to support additional configuration or boards etc.
88
89Maintainer
90  Any changes that touch the logic or the original design of a subsystem or
91  component will need to be reviewed by the code owner or the designated subsystem
92  maintainer. If the code changes is initiated by a contributor or developer other
93  than the owner the pull request needs to be assigned to the code owner who will
94  have to drive the pull request to a mergeable state by giving feedback to the
95  author and asking for more reviews from other developers.
96
97Security
98  Changes that appear to have an impact to the overall security of the system need
99  to be reviewed by a security expert from the security working group.
100
101TSC and Working Groups
102  Changes that introduce new features or functionality or change the way the
103  overall system works need to be reviewed by the TSC or the responsible Working
104  Group. For example for :ref:`breaking API changes <breaking_api_changes>`, the
105  proposal needs to be presented in the Architecture meeting so that the relevant
106  stakeholders are made aware of the change.
107
108A Pull-Request should have an Assignee
109=======================================
110
111- An assignee to a pull request should not be the same as the
112  author of the pull-request
113- An assignee to a pull request is responsible for driving the
114  pull request to a mergeable state
115- An assignee is responsible for dismissing stale reviews and seeking reviews
116  from additional developers and contributors
117- Pull requests should not be merged without an approval by the assignee.
118
119Pull Request should not be merged by author without review
120===========================================================
121
122All pull requests need to be reviewed and should not be merged by the author
123without a review. The following exceptions apply:
124
125- Hot fixes: Fixing CI issues, reverts, and system breakage
126- Release related changes: Changing version file, applying tags and release
127  related activities without any code changes.
128
129Developers and contributors should always seek review, however there are cases
130when reviewers are not available and there is a need to get a code change into
131the tree as soon as possible.
132
133Reviewers shall not 'Request Changes' without comments or justification
134=======================================================================
135
136Any change requests (-1) on a pull request have to be justified. A reviewer
137should avoid blocking a pull-request with no justification. If a reviewer feels
138that a change should not be merged without their review, then: Request change
139of the category: for example:
140
141- Trivial -> Maintainer
142- Assign Pull Request to yourself, this will mean that a pull request should
143  not be merged without your approval.
144
145
146Pull Requests should have at least 2 approvals before they are merged
147======================================================================
148
149A pull-request shall be merged only with two positive reviews (approval). Beside
150the person merging the pull-request (merging != approval), two additional
151approvals are required to be able to merge a pull request. The person merging
152the request can merge without approving or approve and merge to get to the 2
153approvals required.
154
155Reviewers should keep track of pull requests they have provided feedback to
156===========================================================================
157
158If a reviewer has requested changes in a pull request, he or she should monitor
159the state of the pull request and/or respond to mention requests to see if his
160feedback has been addressed. Failing to do so, negative reviews shall be
161dismissed by the assignee or an owner of the repository. Reviews will be
162dismissed following the criteria below:
163
164- The feedback or concerns were visibly addressed by the author
165- The reviewer did not revisit the pull request after 2 week and multiple pings
166  by the author
167- The review is unrelated to the code change or asking for unjustified
168  structural changes such as:
169
170  - Split the PR
171  - Can you fix this unrelated code that happens to appear in the diff
172  - Can you fix unrelated issues
173  - Etc.
174
175Closing Stale Issues and Pull Requests
176=======================================
177
178- The Pull requests and issues sections on Github are NOT discussion forums.
179  They are items that we need to execute and drive to closure.
180  Use the mailing lists for discussions.
181- In case of both issues and pull-requests the original poster needs to respond
182  to questions and provide clarifications regarding the issue or the change.
183  After one week without a response to a request, a second attempt to elicit
184  a response from the contributor will be made. After one more week without a
185  response the item may be closed (draft and DNM tagged pull requests are
186  excluded).
187
188Continuous Integration
189***********************
190
191All changes submitted to GitHub are subject to tests that are run on
192emulated platforms and architectures to identify breakage and regressions that
193can be immediately identified. Testing using Twister additionally performs build tests
194of all boards and platforms. Documentation changes are also verified
195through review and build testing to verify doc generation will be successful.
196
197Any failures found during the CI test run will result in a negative review
198assigned automatically by the CI system.
199Developers are expected to fix issues and rework their patches and submit again.
200
201The CI infrastructure currently runs the following tests:
202
203- Run ``checkpatch`` for code style issues (can vote -1 on errors; see note)
204- Gitlint: Git commit style based on project requirements
205- License Check: Check for conflicting licenses
206- Run ``twister`` script
207
208  - Run kernel tests in QEMU (can vote -1 on errors)
209  - Build various samples for different boards (can vote -1 on errors)
210
211- Verify documentation builds correctly.
212
213.. note::
214
215   ``checkpatch`` is a Perl script that uses regular expressions to
216   extract information that requires a C language parser to process
217   accurately.  As such it sometimes issues false positives.  Known
218   cases include constructs like:
219
220    .. code-block:: c
221
222      static uint8_t __aligned(PAGE_SIZE) page_pool[PAGE_SIZE * POOL_PAGES];
223      IOPCTL_Type *base = config->base;
224
225   Both lines produce a diagnostic regarding spaces around the ``*``
226   operator: the first is misidentified as a pointer type declaration
227   that would be correct as ``PAGE_SIZE *POOL_PAGES`` while the second
228   is misidentified as a multiplication expression that would be correct
229   as ``IOPCTL_Type * base``.
230
231   Maintainers can override the -1 in cases where the CI infrastructure
232   gets the wrong answer.
233
234
235.. _gh_labels:
236
237Labeling issues and pull requests in GitHub
238*******************************************
239
240The project uses GitHub issues and pull requests (PRs) to track and manage
241daily and long-term work and contributions to the Zephyr project. We use
242GitHub **labels** to classify and organize these issues and PRs by area, type,
243priority, and more, making it easier to find and report on relevant items.
244
245All GitHub issues or pull requests must be appropriately labeled.
246Issues and PRs often have multiple labels assigned,
247to help classify them in the different available categories.
248When reviewing a PR, if it has missing or incorrect labels, maintainers shall
249fix it.
250
251This saves us all time when searching, reduces the chances of the PR or issue
252being forgotten, speeds up reviewing, avoids duplicate issue reports, etc.
253
254These are the labels we currently have, grouped by applicability:
255
256Labels applicable to issues only
257================================
258
259.. list-table::
260   :header-rows: 1
261
262   * - Label
263     - Description
264
265   * - :guilabel:`priority: {high|medium|low}`
266     - To classify the impact and importance of a bug or
267       :ref:`feature <feature-tracking>`.
268
269       Note: Issue priorities are generally set or changed during the bug-triage or TSC
270       meetings.
271
272   * - :guilabel:`Regression`
273     - Something, which was working, but does not anymore (bug subtype).
274
275   * - :guilabel:`Enhancement`
276     - Changes/Updates/Additions to existing :ref:`features <feature-tracking>`.
277
278   * - :guilabel:`Feature request`
279     - A request for a new :ref:`feature <feature-tracking>`.
280
281   * - :guilabel:`Feature`
282     - A :ref:`planned feature<feature-tracking>` with a milestone.
283
284   * - :guilabel:`Hardware Support`
285     - Covers porting an existing feature (including Zephyr itself) to new hardware.
286
287   * - :guilabel:`Duplicate`
288     - This issue is a duplicate of another issue (please specify).
289
290   * - :guilabel:`Good first issue`
291     - Good for a first time contributor to take.
292
293   * - :guilabel:`Release Notes`
294     - Issues that need to be mentioned in release notes as known issues with
295       additional information.
296
297Any issue must be classified and labeled as either *Bug*, *Enhancement*, *RFC*,
298*Feature*, *Feature Request* or *Hardware Support*. More information on how
299feature requests are handled and become features can be found in :ref:`Feature
300Tracking<feature-tracking>`.
301
302Labels applicable to pull requests only
303=======================================
304
305The issue or PR describes a change to a stable API.
306
307.. list-table::
308   :header-rows: 1
309
310   * - Label
311     - Description
312
313   * - :guilabel:`Hotfix`
314     - Fix for an issue blocking development.
315
316   * - :guilabel:`Trivial`
317     - Simple changes that can have shorter review time and be reviewed by anyone, i.e. typos,
318       straightforward one-liner bug fixes, etc.
319
320   * - :guilabel:`Maintainer`
321     - Maintainer review required.
322
323   * - :guilabel:`Security Review`
324     - To be reviewed by a security expert.
325
326   * - :guilabel:`DNM`
327     - This PR should not be merged (Do Not Merge). For work in progress, GitHub
328       "draft" PRs are preferred.
329
330   * - :guilabel:`Needs review`
331     - The PR needs attention from the maintainers.
332
333   * - :guilabel:`Backport`
334     - The PR is a backport or should be backported.
335
336   * - :guilabel:`Licensing`
337     - The PR has licensing issues which require a licensing expert to review it.
338
339.. note::
340   For all labels applicable to PRs: Please note that the label, together with
341   PR complexity, affects how long a merge should be held to ensure proper
342   review. See :ref:`review process <review_time>` for details.
343
344
345Labels applicable to both pull requests and issues
346==================================================
347
348.. list-table::
349   :header-rows: 1
350
351   * - Label
352     - Description
353
354   * - :guilabel:`area: {area-name}`
355     - Indicates Zephyr subsystems (e.g, :guilabel:`area: Kernel`, :guilabel:`area: I2C`,
356       :guilabel:`area: Memory Management`), project functions (e.g., :guilabel:`area: Debugging`,
357       :guilabel:`area: Documentation`, :guilabel:`area: Process`), or other categories (e.g.,
358       :guilabel:`area: Coding Style`, :guilabel:`area: MISRA-C`) affected by the bug or the pull request.
359
360       An area maintainer should be able to filter by an area label and find all issues
361       and PRs which relate to that area.
362
363   * - :guilabel:`platform: {platform-name}`
364     - An issue or PR which affects only a particular platform.
365
366   * - :guilabel:`dev-review`
367     - The issue is to be discussed in the following `dev-review`_ if time
368       permits.
369
370       .. _`dev-review`: https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr/wiki/Zephyr-Committee-and-Working-Groups#zephyr-dev-meeting
371
372   * - :guilabel:`TSC`
373     - TSC stands for Technical Steering Committee. The issue is to be discussed in the
374       following `TSC meeting`_ if time permits.
375
376       .. _`TSC meeting`: https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr/wiki/Technical-Steering-Committee-(TSC)
377
378   * - :guilabel:`Breaking API Change`
379     - The issue or PR describes a breaking change to a stable API. See additional information
380       in :ref:`breaking_api_changes`.
381
382   * - :guilabel:`bug`
383     - The issue is a bug, or the PR is fixing a bug.
384
385   * - :guilabel:`Coverity`
386     - A Coverity detected issue or its fix.
387
388   * - :guilabel:`Waiting for response`
389     - The Zephyr developers are waiting for the submitter to respond to a question, or
390       address an issue.
391
392   * - :guilabel:`Blocked`
393     - Blocked by another PR or issue.
394
395   * - :guilabel:`Stale`
396     - An issue or a PR which seems abandoned, and requires attention by the author.
397
398   * - :guilabel:`In progress`
399     - For PRs: is work in progress and should not be merged yet. For issues: Is being
400       worked on.
401
402   * - :guilabel:`RFC`
403     - The author would like input from the community. For a PR it should be considered
404       a draft.
405
406   * - :guilabel:`LTS`
407     - Long term release branch related.
408
409   * - :guilabel:`EXT`
410     - Related to an external component.
411