- You agree to license your contributions under MPL 2.
- You agreed to follow the Code of Conduct.
- Discuss large changes in Discourse or on a GitHub issue before coding.
- We don't accept pull requests for translated strings (anything under
locale/). Please use Pontoon instead.
The MDN platform is a mature product, which means there aren't always bugs that are suitable for new contributors. We keep a list of starting mentored bugs on the MDN "Getting Involved" page. There are interesting MDN projects outside of writing Python for the platform, but they may be harder to find. If you have questions about what to work on, you can ask:
- In the #mdn Matrix room on chat.mozilla.org.
- In the MDN Topic in Discourse.
The MDN development process is similar to GitHub Flow. The general steps are:
- Install our development environment.
- Create a branch for your bug.
- Make your changes, and create one or more commits.
- Push your branch to your fork.
- Open a pull request (PR).
- Fix any issues identified by TravisCI, our automated testing provider.
- Fix any issues identified by code review.
MDN staff will take a look at your PR in 1 to 2 business days, either to review and give feedback, or to tell you when we plan to review it.
Contributors should follow MDN conventions as much as possible. This maintains code quality and makes it easier to research problems. At the same time, we don't expect new contributors to be familiar with all the rules. Pull requests will not be rejected just because they don't follow conventions. Depending on your experience level, reviewers may ask you to bring your PR up to standards, or may make the changes themselves before merging. As you become more experienced, you will be expected to make these changes yourself.
Python code style should follow PEP8 standards. The required subset
of PEP8 is checked by flake8 (make lint). Other PEP8
and PEP257 (docstring) conventions are encouraged but not yet
enforced.
In Python code, we prefer 'single quotes' for code strings and
"""triple double-quotes""" for docstrings. There are other style
conventions (such as import statement order and indenting) which can be
determined by reading existing code.
Similar standards are enforced for front-end assets like CSS and JavaScript. Some are checked by tools, and other by code review.
We prefer that branch names have a descriptive summary and the bug number. MDN
staff are working with multiple branches at a time, and this makes it easier
to remember which is which. noun-### or verb-noun-#### are good
patterns to follow. Some good branch names:
cache-control-headers-1431259update-requests-1399639
Some bad branch names:
bug973612- This name requires looking up bug details in Bugzilla.fix-973612- This still doesn't communicate what the branch changes.create-page- This doesn't include the bug number, which suggests the author isn't linking changes to a bug.1431259-cache-control-headers- Putting the bug number first makes it more difficult to use tab-completion.
Exceptions are branches used in the deployment process, such as
stage-push and prod-push, and submodule update branches, such as
pre-push-2018-02-21.
In general, we prefer branches are stored on a fork, rather than the origin
repository. There are exceptions, such as the stage-push and
the prod-push branches, when we want the branch to run on our continuous
integration server.
It is recommended and safe to delete branches after the pull request is closed. GitHub will remember the code changes in the context of the pull request. Less stale branches mean less clutter and confusion.
We prefer one-commit pull requests that are small and focused. Multiple commit PRs are good when the solution naturally breaks into multiple steps. The test suite should pass for each commit.
Once a pull request is open, we prefer changes as additional commits. This makes it easier to review just the changes since the last review. Once a pull request is approved, the commits can be "squashed" into a single commit before merging. Squashing is usually decided by the reviewer, but feel free to squash commits yourself, ask for commits to be squashed, or ask for them to be kept separate.
All commit messages must start with bug NNNNNNN. This format makes it
easier to consume the commit log and get back to the Bugzilla bug. Bugzilla
is where proposed changes are discussed, where one or more related changes are
linked, and where regressions are tracked. We sometimes omit a bug or bug
number for non-code commits such as merge commits, submodule updates, and
updating translatable strings.
fix bug NNNNNNN can also be used. When these commits are merged, the bug is
marked RESOLVED: FIXED. fix bug can be used when merging will fix the
bug, such as documentation updates or build fixes. fix bug is discouraged
when the code needs to be deployed to production to fix the issue, or when
multiple PRs are expected.
The rules for a great commit message should be followed:
- Separate the subject line from the body with a blank line.
- Limit the subject line to 50 characters.
- Capitalize the subject line.
- Do not end the subject line with a period.
- Use the imperative mood in the subject line.
- Wrap the body at 72 characters.
- Use the body to explain what and why versus how.
Here's an example of a decent commit message (which ends up much longer than the commit itself!):
bug 1316610: Drop Crawl-delay, etc from robots.txt
Googlebot doesn't respect Crawl-delay, but instead watches to see how
fast it can index your site without breaking it.
Request-rate isn't known by Googlebot, and doesn't appear to be supported
by many crawlers.
MDN can be accessed faster than 5 pages per second, and we shouldn't
penalize scrapers that respect robots.txt.
MDN uses automated tests to prevent regressions and ensure that new code does what it claims. Tests are required for new functionality, as measured by code coverage tools, and all tests must pass before merging.
We use TravisCI to automatically run tests and quality checks when a pull request is opened. If TravisCI identifies problems, we expect them to be fixed before the code review starts.
It is a good idea to run the tests that apply to your change before opening a pull request. It is useful to know how to run the test suite, and how to run a subset of the tests.
Automated tests are in the process of being converted to pytest, but a lot of the old-style code remains. Contributors can write new tests in the style of existing tests. They can also join MDN staff in converting to the new style. MDN staff is updating tests as we add or update functionality, so seldom-updated code is more likely to have old-style tests. We expect a full conversion to take a few more years.
We avoid old-style tests that use Django's TestCase testing classes, fixture files and general-purpose factory functions like get_user, document, and revision.
We prefer test functions, a small number of global pytest fixtures like root_doc and wiki_user, adding application- and file-local fixtures that customize the global fixtures, and using assert for test assertions.
We have a functional test suite that runs against a running MDN instance. It can be challenging to run or alter these tests. A reviewer can determine if changes are needed to functional tests, and if they need to be included in the pull request or can be written (usually by staff) in a new PR.
The author should include the bug number and a summary of the change as the pull request title, and a description of the change as the pull request body. A good commit message often makes a good PR message. An empty PR body is rarely appropriate.
For bug fixes, it can be useful to include steps needed to reproduce the bug in a development environment. It can also be useful to suggest manual tests that a reviewer should try.
Do not double-submit a change as a patch in Bugzilla. If you like, you can update the bug to link to your pull request and mark yourself as the assignee.
Code reviews help us maintain and improve code quality. It can also be stressful to have your work criticized. Code reviewers should point out good code as well as bad, be clear when changes are needed, and offer suggestions for fixing code. Code authors should ask questions when a suggestion is unclear, and ask for help if needed. On both sides, the review should be about the code, not the person, and the code of conduct must be followed.
An MDN module owner or peer must review and merge all pull requests. Owner and peers are accountable for the quality of MDN code changes, and often know when a change will have a wider than expected impact. In an emergency, code may be merged without review, but a bug should be filed for a follow-up review. There may also be exceptions for changes that don't impact production.
Pull requests that modify the database must be reviewed by a module owner. Changes to database tables are critical and may lead to loss of data. They are also tricky to deploy, usually requiring multiple deployments.
Security changes should be reviewed outside of the public repository. They are
manually merged by a peer, and the commit should include a comment such as
r=username to say who the reviewer was.
A reviewer may identify a "nit", which is a style preference that isn't important enough to reject a pull request. Feel free to fix or ignore nits if desired.
We use the following labels for pull requests:
- manual merge: This pull request is ready, but additional steps outside of code review are needed to merge it.
- not ready: The author says this pull request isn't ready to review. For example, it requires tests or documentation.
In general, the reviewer merges the pull request. When reviewing a PR from a staff member, a reviewer may approve the PR with nits, and let the author merge after fixing minor issues.
MDN staff deploy new code one to three times a week. Currently deployed code can be seen on the What's Deployed? page.
Once a bug fix is in production, the bug can be marked as RESOLVED:FIXED.