Reviewer Guide#

Pull Request reviewers play an important role in predictably’s development. On the predictably project our review takes three main forms:

  • Triage

  • Code Review

  • Documentation Review

See the details on each level of review below.

Warning

The reviewer guide is under development. If you have suggestions, open an issue or Pull Request.

Triage#

  • Assign relevant labels

  • Assign to relevant project board

  • Title: Is it using the 3-letter codes? Is it understandable?

  • Description: Is it understandable? Any related issues/PRs?

  • CI checks: approval for first-time contributors, any help needed with code/doc quality checks?

  • Merge conflicts

Code Review#

  • Unit testing:

    • Are the code changes tested?

    • Are the tests understandable?

    • Are all changes covered by tests? We usually aim for a test coverage of at least 90% (but preferably 100% coverage on new code).

    • Code coverage will be reported as part of the automated CI checks on GitHub and on the Codecov website.

  • Test changes locally: Does everything work as expected?

  • Deprecation warnings:

    • Has the public API changed?

    • Have deprecation warnings been added before making the changes?

Documentation Review#

  • Are the docstrings complete and understandable to users?

  • Do they follow the NumPy format and predictably conventions?

  • If the same parameter, attribute, return object or error is included elsewhere in predictably are the docstring descriptions as similar as possible?

  • Does the online documentation render correctly with the changes?

  • Do the docstrings contain links to the relevant topics in the Glossary of Common Terms or User Guide?

Note

If a Pull Request does not meet predictably’s documentation guide a reviewer should require the documentation be updated prior to approving the Pull Request.