From e1bef33742d04088bb7c392118a8ff96c930c330 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: GJS <homelab.api@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2025 08:55:15 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] New file: Introduce Review Process document for Uptime Kuma - Added a new `REVIEW_PROCESS.md` file outlining the guidelines for reviewing pull requests. - The document aims to standardize the review process, ensuring consistency and improving code quality. - It includes sections on preparation, general review, testing, security, performance, compliance, and more. new file: .github/REVIEW_PROCESS.md --- .github/REVIEW_PROCESS.md | 219 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 219 insertions(+) create mode 100644 .github/REVIEW_PROCESS.md diff --git a/.github/REVIEW_PROCESS.md b/.github/REVIEW_PROCESS.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..7bebb9e6b --- /dev/null +++ b/.github/REVIEW_PROCESS.md @@ -0,0 +1,219 @@ +# Review Process for Uptime Kuma + +**Note:** This Review Process document is a work in progress. Updates and +improvements are being made, so please check back regularly for the latest +version. + +## Preparation for Reviewing a PR + +### Read the PR description carefully + +Make sure you understand what the PR is trying to solve or implement. This could +be a bug fix, a new feature, or a refactor. + +### Check the linked issues + +If the PR has a linked issue, read it to better understand the context and the +reason for the change. + +### Check the test coverage + +Make sure relevant tests have been added or modified. If the PR adds new +functionality, there should be tests covering the change. + +## General Review + +### Code formatting and style + +Check if the code adheres to the agreed style guidelines of the project (e.g., +PEP8 for Python, Airbnb style for JavaScript, etc.). Make sure there are no +unused imports, variables, or code fragments in the PR. + +- [Project Style](https://github.com/louislam/uptime-kuma/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#project-styles) +- [Coding Style](https://github.com/louislam/uptime-kuma/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#coding-styles) + +### Readability and maintainability + +Is the code understandable to other developers? Ensure that complex parts are +well-documented with comments. Are variables and functions clearly named, and +does the code follow a consistent naming convention? Additionally, check if the +code is maintainable: + +- Is it unnecessarily complex? Could it be simplified? +- Does it follow the **[Single Responsibility Principle (SRP)]**? + +[Single Responsibility Principle (SRP)]: https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/single-responsibility-in-solid-design-principle/ + +### Documentation + +Is the PR well documented? Check if the descriptions of functions, parameters, +and return values are present. Are there any changes needed to the README or +other documentation, for example, if new features or configurations are +introduced? + +## Functional Review + +### Testing + +Ensure that the new code is properly tested. This includes unit tests, +integration tests, and if necessary, end-to-end tests. + +### Test results + +Did all tests pass in the CI pipeline (e.g., GitHub Actions, Travis, CircleCI)? + +### Testing in different environments + +If the changes depend on certain environments or configurations, verify that the +code has been tested in various environments (e.g., local development, staging, +production). + +- [How to test Pull Requests](https://github.com/louislam/uptime-kuma/wiki/Test-Pull-Requests) + +### Edge cases and regressions + +- Are there test cases for possible edge cases? +- Could this change introduce regressions in other parts of the system? + +## Security + +### Security issues + +Check for potential security problems, such as SQL injection, XSS attacks, or +unsafe API calls. Are there passwords, tokens, or other sensitive data left in +the code by mistake? + +### Authentication and authorization + +Is access to sensitive data or functionality properly secured? Check that the +correct authorization and authentication mechanisms are in place. + +### Security Best Practices + +- Ensure that the code is free from common vulnerabilities like **SQL + injection**, **XSS attacks**, and **insecure API calls**. +- Check for proper encryption of sensitive data, and ensure that **passwords** + or **API tokens** are not hardcoded in the code. + +## Performance + +### Performance impact + +Check if the changes negatively impact performance. This can include factors +like load times, memory usage, or other performance aspects. + +### Use of external libraries + +- Have the right libraries been chosen? +- Are there unnecessary dependencies that might reduce performance or increase + code complexity? +- Are these dependencies actively maintained and free of known vulnerabilities? + +### Performance Best Practices + +- **Measure performance** using tools like Lighthouse or profiling libraries. +- **Avoid unnecessary dependencies** that may bloat the codebase. +- Ensure that the **code does not degrade the user experience** (e.g., by + increasing load times or memory consumption). + +## Compliance and Integration + +### Alignment with the project + +Are the changes consistent with the project goals and requirements? Ensure the +PR aligns with the architecture and design principles of the project. + +### Integration + +If the PR depends on other PRs or changes, verify that they integrate well with +the rest of the project. Ensure the code does not cause conflicts with other +active PRs. + +### Backward compatibility + +Does the change break compatibility with older versions of the software or +dependencies? If so, is there a migration plan in place? + +## Logging and Error Handling + +### Proper error handling + +- Are errors properly caught and handled instead of being silently ignored? +- Are exceptions used appropriately? + +### Logging + +- Is sufficient logging included for debugging and monitoring? +- Is there excessive logging that could affect performance? + +## Accessibility (for UI-related changes) + +If the PR affects the user interface, ensure that it meets accessibility +standards: + +- Can users navigate using only the keyboard? +- Are screen readers supported? +- Is there proper color contrast for readability? +- Are there **WCAG** (Web Content Accessibility Guidelines) compliance issues? +- Use tools like **Axe** or **Lighthouse** to evaluate accessibility. + +## Providing Feedback + +### Constructive feedback + +Provide clear, constructive feedback on what is good and what can be improved. +If improvements are needed, be specific about what should change. + +### Clarity and collaboration + +Ensure your feedback is friendly and open, so the team member who submitted the +PR feels supported and motivated to make improvements. + +## Go/No-Go Decision ━ For Maintainers only + +### Go + +If the code has no issues and meets the project requirements, approve it (and +possibly merge it). + +### No-Go + +If there are significant issues, such as missing tests, security +vulnerabilities, or performance problems, request the necessary changes before +the PR can be approved. Some examples of **significant issues** include: + +- Missing tests for new functionality. +- Identified **security vulnerabilities**. +- Code changes that break **backward compatibility** without a proper migration + plan. +- Code that causes **major performance regressions** (e.g., high CPU/memory + usage). + +## After the Review ━ For Maintainers only + +### Reordering and merging + +Once the necessary changes have been made and the PR is approved, the code can +be merged into the main branch (e.g., `main` or `master`). + +### Testing after merging + +Ensure that the build passes after merging the PR, and re-test the functionality +in the production environment if necessary. + +## Follow-up ━ For Maintainers only + +### Communication with team members + +If the PR has long-term technical or functional implications, communicate the +changes to the team. + +### Monitoring + +Continue monitoring the production environment for any unexpected issues that +may arise after the code has been merged. + +--- + +This process ensures that PRs are systematically and thoroughly reviewed, +improving overall code quality.