..  Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one
    or more contributor license agreements.  See the NOTICE file
    distributed with this work for additional information
    regarding copyright ownership.  The ASF licenses this file
    to you under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the
    "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance
    with the License.  You may obtain a copy of the License at

..    http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0

..  Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing,
    software distributed under the License is distributed on an
    "AS IS" BASIS, WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY
    KIND, either express or implied.  See the License for the
    specific language governing permissions and limitations
    under the License.

.. _code_review_guide:

Perform Code Reviews
====================

This is a general guideline for code reviewers. First of all, while it is great to add new features to a project, we must also be aware that each line of code we introduce also brings **technical debt** that we may have to eventually pay.

Open source code is maintained by a community with diverse backend, and it is even more important to bring clear, documented and maintainable code. Code reviews are shepherding process to spot potential problems, improve quality of the code. We should, however, not rely on code review process to get the code into a ready state. Contributors are encouraged to polish the code to a ready state before requesting reviews. This is especially expected for code owner and comitter candidates.

Here are some checklists for code reviews, it is also helpful reference for contributors



Hold the Highest Standard
-------------------------
The first rule for code reviewers is to always keep the highest standard, and do not approve code just to "be friendly". Good, informative critics each other learn and prevents technical debt in early stages.

Deliberate on API and Data Structures
-------------------------------------
A minimum and stable API is critical to the project’s life. A good API makes a huge difference. Always think very carefully about all the aspects including naming, argument definitions and behavior.

When possible, pay more time and thoughts into the API design during code reviews.
Remember, it is easier to improve code implementation, but it is extremely hard to change an API.
We should do the same for data structures that are shared across modules(e.g. AST).
When uncertain, start a conversation with more developers.

Here are some useful principles for designing APIs:

- Be consistent with existing well-known package’s APIs if the feature overlap.
  For example, tensor operation APIs should always be consistent with the numpy API.
- Be consistent with existing APIs in the same project.
  For example, we should use the same argument ordering across all the optimization passes,
  so there is no "surprise" when using them.
- Think about whether the API will change in the future.
  For example, we will have more options like loop_unrolling and device placement policy
  as we add more optimizations in build. We can package optimization knobs into a build
  configuration object. So that the build API is stable over time.
- Write down documents. Documents are mandatory for APIs and sometimes writing documents helps
  us to think about whether we need clarification.
- Minimum. Think about how many lines of code a user has to write to use the API.
  Remove layers of abstraction when possible.


Ensure Test Coverage
--------------------
Each new change of features should introduce test cases, bug fixes should include regression tests that prevent the problem from happening again.

Documentations are Mandatory
----------------------------
Documentation is usually a place we overlooked, new functions or change to a function should be directly updated in documents. A new feature is meaningless without documentation to make it accessible. See more at :ref:`doc_guide`

Minimum Dependency
------------------
Always be cautious in introducing dependencies. While it is important to reuse code and not reinventing the wheel, dependencies can increase burden of users in deployment. A good design principle only depends on the part when a user actually use it.

Ensure Readability
------------------
While it is hard to implement a new feature, it is even harder to make others understand and maintain the code you wrote. It is common for a PMC or committer to not being able to understand certain contributions. In such case, a reviewer should say "I don’t understand" and ask the contributor to clarify. We highly encourage code comments which explain the code logic along with the code.

Concise Implementation
----------------------
Some basic principles applied here: favor vectorized array code over loops, is there existing API that solves the problem.

Document Lessons in Code Reviews
--------------------------------
When you find there are some common lessons that can be summarized in the guideline,
add it to the :ref:`code_guide`.
It is always good to refer to the guideline document when requesting changes,
so the lessons can be shared to all the community.

Respect each other
------------------
The code reviewers and contributors are paying the most precious currencies in the world -- time. We are volunteers in the community to spend the time to build good code, help each other, learn and have fun hacking.

Learn from other Code Reviews
-----------------------------
There can be multiple reviewers reviewing the same changes. Many cases other reviewers
may spot things you did not find. Try to learn from other code reviews,
when possible, document these lessons.

Approve and Request Changes Explicitly
--------------------------------------
The contributor and code owner can request code reviews from multiple reviewers.
Remember to approve changes when your comments are addressed in a code review.
To do so -- please click on changes tab in the pull request, then select approve,
or comment on the code and click request changes.
Code owner can decide if the code can be merged in case by case if some of the reviewers
did not respond in time(e.g. a week) and existing reviews are sufficient.
