Project: Scylla (App Definition and Development / Database)
File: review-checklist.md

This document describes general guidelines for reviewing patches to Scylla. The guidelines are not absolute; with good reason they can be overridden at the discretion of the maintainers. Nevertheless, patches should try to conform to these guidelines instead of finding reasons for seeking an exception. Code should conform to the project's coding style, see . Changes should be organized into one or more patches, depending on how big the change is, according to the following guidelines: Patches should be small. Patches should all individually compile and be correct (all tests should pass). You are not required to verify this but do look for any signs in the code that suggest this might be violated. For example a patch introducing a regression test being ordered before the fix. Or a method being used before the patch that introduces it. Patches should be self-contained and do one thing. Each patch should have a descriptive commit log. The patch description should not assume the reviewer is an expert in the matter. It should include enough context that a non-expert can understand, on their way to becoming an expert. The patch description should be self-contained and not refer to out-of-band discussions ("as agreed on the daily call"). Each patch should have a motivation for the change. Patch descriptions that simply say "make X do Y" without explaining why that's a good thing are considered bad. A good litmus test is whether the inverse patch ("make X not do Y") is just as compelling as the original patch. If it is, why prefer one over the other? Each pull request should include a motivation for the change(s). For multi-patch series, this should be in the cover-letter, for single patch ones in the patch description. Names should avoid abbreviations (industry-standard abbreviations are acceptable) as they make the code opaque to newcomers. Within a restricted scope such as a function or a class, local or private variables can be given abbreviated

The following should be avoided: computational loops without preemption checks and yields allocation of large contiguous memory blocks in non-initialization code quadratic (or worse) behavior on user-controlled inputs Code that generates concurrent behavior should include means to control the amount of concurrency, placing an upper bound on the amount of memory in use by concurrent operations. If a component performs work in the background, it would include a mechanism (`stop()` or `close()`) to wait for background work to complete. If background work is unbounded in time, the code should be able to abort in-progress work. Patches should be accompanied by unit test when feasible. patches that fix a bug should be accompanied by a test that fails before the patch is applied and passes after it is applied patches that introduce generic code (such as a container) should test all aspects of that code, not just those that are used by the patchset. In non performance sensitive code, type erasure should be preferred to templates in order to reduce code and compile time bloat. In performance sensitive code, template bloat can be justified. Template parameters should be constrained by C++ concepts, both as code documentation, and to enable early error checking by the compiler. Templates should not be used as an ad-hoc method to reduce code duplication; rather they should be used when a common concept can be captured in template code and reused. The singleton pattern should be avoided when it can introduce confusion about initialization order or make unit testing difficult. Instead, dependencies should be passed via constructor parameters (the "dependency injection" pattern). Non obvious invariants should be checked. There are three ways of doing it, asserts, throwing exceptions and logging failures. If an invariant is critical for the stability of the system, use an assert. For example, a broken invariant in the memory allocator can lead to data corruption and there is no way to work around it, so assert. If an invariant is needed only by some features and the system can shutdown cleanly without it, then a throw is appropriate. If the issue was found while serving a user request the exception is propagated back to the user. It if was a scylla internal operation, it will still bring down the node. When the operation can just be ignored, logging the failure is the best option. The canonical example is when an element is "known" to be in a container, but while trying to remove it we find out that it was not there.