DXR is a code search and navigation tool aimed at making sense of large projects. It supports full-text and regex searches as well as structural queries.

Mercurial (30ffe7479d06)

VCS Links

Line Code
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387
# Contributing to Tokio

:balloon: Thanks for your help improving the project! We are so happy to have

There are opportunities to contribute to Tokio at any level. It doesn't matter if
you are just getting started with Rust or are the most weathered expert, we can
use your help.

**No contribution is too small and all contributions are valued.**

This guide will help you get started. **Do not let this guide intimidate you**.
It should be considered a map to help you navigate the process.

You may also get help with contributing in the [dev channel][dev], please join

[dev]: https://gitter.im/tokio-rs/dev

## Conduct

The Tokio project adheres to the [Rust Code of Conduct][coc]. This describes
the _minimum_ behavior expected from all contributors.

[coc]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md

## Contributing in Issues

For any issue, there are fundamentally three ways an individual can contribute:

1. By opening the issue for discussion: For instance, if you believe that you
   have uncovered a bug in Tokio, creating a new issue in the tokio-rs/tokio
   issue tracker is the way to report it.

2. By helping to triage the issue: This can be done by providing
   supporting details (a test case that demonstrates a bug), providing
   suggestions on how to address the issue, or ensuring that the issue is tagged

3. By helping to resolve the issue: Typically this is done either in the form of
   demonstrating that the issue reported is not a problem after all, or more
   often, by opening a Pull Request that changes some bit of something in
   Tokio in a concrete and reviewable manner.

**Anybody can participate in any stage of contribution**. We urge you to
participate in the discussion around bugs and participate in reviewing PRs.

### Asking for General Help

If you have reviewed existing documentation and still have questions or are
having problems, you can open an issue asking for help.

In exchange for receiving help, we ask that you contribute back a documentation
PR that helps others avoid the problems that you encountered.

### Submitting a Bug Report

When opening a new issue in the Tokio issue tracker, users will be presented
with a [basic template][template] that should be filled in. If you believe that you have
uncovered a bug, please fill out this form, following the template to the best
of your ability. Do not worry if you cannot answer every detail, just fill in
what you can.

The two most important pieces of information we need in order to properly
evaluate the report is a description of the behavior you are seeing and a simple
test case we can use to recreate the problem on our own. If we cannot recreate
the issue, it becomes impossible for us to fix.

In order to rule out the possibility of bugs introduced by userland code, test
cases should be limited, as much as possible, to using only Tokio APIs.

See [How to create a Minimal, Complete, and Verifiable example][mcve].

[mcve]: https://stackoverflow.com/help/mcve
[template]: .github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md

### Triaging a Bug Report

Once an issue has been opened, it is not uncommon for there to be discussion
around it. Some contributors may have differing opinions about the issue,
including whether the behavior being seen is a bug or a feature. This discussion
is part of the process and should be kept focused, helpful, and professional.

Short, clipped responses—that provide neither additional context nor supporting
detail—are not helpful or professional. To many, such responses are simply
annoying and unfriendly.

Contributors are encouraged to help one another make forward progress as much as
possible, empowering one another to solve issues collaboratively. If you choose
to comment on an issue that you feel either is not a problem that needs to be
fixed, or if you encounter information in an issue that you feel is incorrect,
explain why you feel that way with additional supporting context, and be willing
to be convinced that you may be wrong. By doing so, we can often reach the
correct outcome much faster.

### Resolving a Bug Report

In the majority of cases, issues are resolved by opening a Pull Request. The
process for opening and reviewing a Pull Request is similar to that of opening
and triaging issues, but carries with it a necessary review and approval
workflow that ensures that the proposed changes meet the minimal quality and
functional guidelines of the Tokio project.

## Pull Requests

Pull Requests are the way concrete changes are made to the code, documentation,
and dependencies in the Tokio repository.

Even tiny pull requests (e.g., one character pull request fixing a typo in API
documentation) are greatly appreciated. Before making a large change, it is
usually a good idea to first open an issue describing the change to solicit
feedback and guidance. This will increasethe likelihood of the PR getting

### Tests

If the change being proposed alters code (as opposed to only documentation for
example), it is either adding new functionality to Tokio or it is fixing
existing, broken functionality. In both of these cases, the pull request should
include one or more tests to ensure that Tokio does not regress in the future.
There are two ways to write tests: integration tests and documentation tests
(Tokio avoids unit tests as much as possible).

#### Integration tests

Integration tests go in the same crate as the code they are testing. Each sub
crate should have a `dev-dependency` on `tokio` itself. This makes all Tokio
utilities available to use in tests, no matter the crate being tested.

The best strategy for writing a new integration test is to look at existing
integration tests in the crate and follow the style.

#### Documentation tests

Ideally, every API has at least one [documentation test] that demonstrates how to
use the API. Documentation tests are run with `cargo test --doc`. This ensures
that the example is correct and provides additional test coverage.

The trick to documentation tests is striking a balance between being succinct
for a reader to understand and actually testing the API.

Same as with integration tests, when writing a documentation test, the full
`tokio` crate is available. This is especially useful for getting access to the
runtime to run the example.

The documentation tests will be visible from both the crate specific
documentation **and** the `tokio` facade documentation via the re-export. The
example should be written from the point of view of a user that is using the
`tokio` crate. As such, the example should use the API via the facade and not by
directly referencing the crate.

The type level example for `tokio_timer::Timeout` provides a good example of a
documentation test:

/// # extern crate futures;
/// # extern crate tokio;
/// // import the `timeout` function, usually this is done
/// // with `use tokio::prelude::*`
/// use tokio::prelude::FutureExt;
/// use futures::Stream;
/// use futures::sync::mpsc;
/// use std::time::Duration;
/// # fn main() {
/// let (tx, rx) = mpsc::unbounded();
/// # tx.unbounded_send(()).unwrap();
/// # drop(tx);
/// let process = rx.for_each(|item| {
///     // do something with `item`
/// # drop(item);
/// # Ok(())
/// });
/// # tokio::runtime::current_thread::block_on_all(
/// // Wrap the future with a `Timeout` set to expire in 10 milliseconds.
/// process.timeout(Duration::from_millis(10))
/// # ).unwrap();
/// # }

Given that this is a *type* level documentation test and the primary way users
of `tokio` will create an instance of `Timeout` is by using
`FutureExt::timeout`, this is how the documentation test is structured.

Lines that start with `/// #` are removed when the documentation is generated.
They are only there to get the test to run. The `block_on_all` function is the
easiest way to execute a future from a test.

If this were a documentation test for the `Timeout::new` function, then the
example would explicitly use `Timeout::new`. For example:

/// # extern crate futures;
/// # extern crate tokio;
/// use tokio::timer::Timeout;
/// use futures::Future;
/// use futures::sync::oneshot;
/// use std::time::Duration;
/// # fn main() {
/// let (tx, rx) = oneshot::channel();
/// # tx.send(()).unwrap();
/// # tokio::runtime::current_thread::block_on_all(
/// // Wrap the future with a `Timeout` set to expire in 10 milliseconds.
/// Timeout::new(rx, Duration::from_millis(10))
/// # ).unwrap();
/// # }

### Commits

It is a recommended best practice to keep your changes as logically grouped as
possible within individual commits. There is no limit to the number of commits
any single Pull Request may have, and many contributors find it easier to review
changes that are split across multiple commits.

That said, if you have a number of commits that are "checkpoints" and don't
represent a single logical change, please squash those together.

Note that multiple commits often get squashed when they are landed (see the
notes about [commit squashing]).

#### Commit message guidelines

A good commit message should describe what changed and why.

1. The first line should:

  * contain a short description of the change (preferably 50 characters or less,
    and no more than 72 characters)
  * be entirely in lowercase with the exception of proper nouns, acronyms, and
    the words that refer to code, like function/variable names
  * be prefixed with the name of the sub crate being changed (without the `tokio-`
    prefix) and start with an imperative verb. If modifying `tokio` proper,
    omit the crate prefix.


  * timer: introduce `Timeout` and deprecate `Deadline`
  * export `Encoder`, `Decoder`, `Framed*` from tokio_codec

2. Keep the second line blank.
3. Wrap all other lines at 72 columns (except for long URLs).
4. If your patch fixes an open issue, you can add a reference to it at the end
   of the log. Use the `Fixes: #` prefix and the issue number. For other
   references use `Refs: #`. `Refs` may include multiple issues, separated by a


   - `Fixes: #1337`
   - `Refs: #1234`

Sample complete commit message:

subcrate: explain the commit in one line

Body of commit message is a few lines of text, explaining things
in more detail, possibly giving some background about the issue
being fixed, etc.

The body of the commit message can be several paragraphs, and
please do proper word-wrap and keep columns shorter than about
72 characters or so. That way, `git log` will show things
nicely even when it is indented.

Fixes: #1337
Refs: #453, #154

### Opening the Pull Request

From within GitHub, opening a new Pull Request will present you with a
[template] that should be filled out. Please try to do your best at filling out
the details, but feel free to skip parts if you're not sure what to put.

[template]: .github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md

### Discuss and update

You will probably get feedback or requests for changes to your Pull Request.
This is a big part of the submission process so don't be discouraged! Some
contributors may sign off on the Pull Request right away, others may have
more detailed comments or feedback. This is a necessary part of the process
in order to evaluate whether the changes are correct and necessary.

**Any community member can review a PR and you might get conflicting feedback**.
Keep an eye out for comments from code owners to provide guidance on conflicting

**Once the PR is open, do not rebase the commits**. See [Commit Squashing] for
more details.

### Commit Squashing

In most cases, **do not squash commits that you add to your Pull Request during
the review process**. When the commits in your Pull Request land, they may be
squashed into one commit per logical change. Metadata will be added to the
commit message (including links to the Pull Request, links to relevant issues,
and the names of the reviewers). The commit history of your Pull Request,
however, will stay intact on the Pull Request page.

## Reviewing Pull Requests

**Any Tokio community member is welcome to review any pull request**.

All Tokio contributors who choose to review and provide feedback on Pull
Requests have a responsibility to both the project and the individual making the
contribution. Reviews and feedback must be helpful, insightful, and geared
towards improving the contribution as opposed to simply blocking it. If there
are reasons why you feel the PR should not land, explain what those are. Do not
expect to be able to block a Pull Request from advancing simply because you say
"No" without giving an explanation. Be open to having your mind changed. Be open
to working with the contributor to make the Pull Request better.

Reviews that are dismissive or disrespectful of the contributor or any other
reviewers are strictly counter to the Code of Conduct.

When reviewing a Pull Request, the primary goals are for the codebase to improve
and for the person submitting the request to succeed. **Even if a Pull Request
does not land, the submitters should come away from the experience feeling like
their effort was not wasted or unappreciated**. Every Pull Request from a new
contributor is an opportunity to grow the community.

### Review a bit at a time.

Do not overwhelm new contributors.

It is tempting to micro-optimize and make everything about relative performance,
perfect grammar, or exact style matches. Do not succumb to that temptation.

Focus first on the most significant aspects of the change:

1. Does this change make sense for Tokio?
2. Does this change make Tokio better, even if only incrementally?
3. Are there clear bugs or larger scale issues that need attending to?
4. Is the commit message readable and correct? If it contains a breaking change
   is it clear enough?

Note that only **incremental** improvement is needed to land a PR. This means
that the PR does not need to be perfect, only better than the status quo. Follow
up PRs may be opened to continue iterating.

When changes are necessary, *request* them, do not *demand* them, and **do not
assume that the submitter already knows how to add a test or run a benchmark**.

Specific performance optimization techniques, coding styles and conventions
change over time. The first impression you give to a new contributor never does.

Nits (requests for small changes that are not essential) are fine, but try to
avoid stalling the Pull Request. Most nits can typically be fixed by the Tokio
Collaborator landing the Pull Request but they can also be an opportunity for
the contributor to learn a bit more about the project.

It is always good to clearly indicate nits when you comment: e.g.
`Nit: change foo() to bar(). But this is not blocking.`

If your comments were addressed but were not folded automatically after new
commits or if they proved to be mistaken, please, [hide them][hiding-a-comment]
with the appropriate reason to keep the conversation flow concise and relevant.

### Be aware of the person behind the code

Be aware that *how* you communicate requests and reviews in your feedback can
have a significant impact on the success of the Pull Request. Yes, we may land
a particular change that makes Tokio better, but the individual might just not
want to have anything to do with Tokio ever again. The goal is not just having
good code.

### Abandoned or Stalled Pull Requests

If a Pull Request appears to be abandoned or stalled, it is polite to first
check with the contributor to see if they intend to continue the work before
checking if they would mind if you took it over (especially if it just has nits
left). When doing so, it is courteous to give the original contributor credit
for the work they started (either by preserving their name and email address in
the commit log, or by using an `Author: ` meta-data tag in the commit.

_Adapted from the [Node.js contributing guide][node]_

[node]: https://github.com/nodejs/node/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md.
[hiding-a-comment]: https://help.github.com/articles/managing-disruptive-comments/#hiding-a-comment
[documentation test]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/rustdoc/documentation-tests.html