First off, thanks for taking the time to contribute! The following is a set of guidelines for contributing to an OpenBMC repository which are hosted in the OpenBMC Organization on GitHub. Feel free to propose changes to this document.
We enthusiastically adhere to our Code of Conduct. If you have any concerns, please check that document for guidelines on who can help you resolve them.
OpenBMC relies on the Open Compute Project to provide guidelines on inclusive naming. The OCP guidelines can be found here:
https://www.opencompute.org/documents/ocp-terminology-guidelines-for-inclusion-and-openness
OpenBMC has quite a modular structure, consisting of small daemons with a limited set of responsibilities. These communicate over D-Bus with other components, to implement the complete BMC system.
The BMC's interfaces to the external world are typically through a separate daemon, which then translates those requests to D-Bus messages.
These separate projects are then compiled into the final system by the overall 'openbmc' build infrastructure.
For future development, keep this design in mind. Components' functionality should be logically grouped, and keep related parts together where it makes sense.
Before you make a contribution, execute one of the OpenBMC Contributor License Agreements, One time only:
If you work for someone, consider asking them to execute the corporate CLA. This allows other contributors that work for your employer to skip the CLA signing process, they can just be added to the existing CCLA Schedule A.
After signing a CLA, send it to [email protected].
If you're looking for a place to get started with OpenBMC, you may want to take a look at the issues tagged with 'bitesize'. These are fixes or enhancements that don't require extensive knowledge of the OpenBMC codebase, and are easier for a newcomer to start working with.
Check out that list here:
If you need further details on any of these issues, feel free to add comments.
Performing code reviews is another good way to get started. Go to https://gerrit.openbmc.org and click on the "all" and "open" menu items, or if you are interested in a particular repository - for example, "bmcweb" - type "status:open project:openbmc/bmcweb" into the search bar and press the "search" button. Then select a review. Remember to be positive and add value with every review comment.
Components of the OpenBMC sources should have a consistent style. If the source is coming from another project, we choose to follow the existing style of the upstream project. Otherwise, conventions are chosen based on the language.
Python source should all conform to PEP8. This style is well established within the Python community and can be verified with the 'pycodestyle' tool.
https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0008/
If a repository has a setup.cfg file present in its root directory, then CI will automatically verify the Python code meets the pycodestyle requirements. This enforces PEP 8 standards on all Python code.
OpenBMC standards for Python match with PEP 8 so in general, a blank setup.cfg file is all that's needed. If so desired, enforcement of 80 (vs. the default 79) chars is fine as well:
[pycodestyle]
max-line-length = 80
By default, pycodestyle does not enforce the following rules: E121, E123, E126, E133, E226, E241, E242, E704, W503, and W504. These rules are ignored because they are not unanimously accepted and PEP 8 does not enforce them. It is at the repository maintainer's discretion as to whether to enforce the aforementioned rules. These rules can be enforced by adding the following to the setup.cfg:
[pycodestyle]
ignore= NONE
We follow the Google JavaScript Style Guide.
We follow the Google HTML/CSS Style Guide.
For C code, we typically use the Linux coding style, which is documented at:
In short:
-
Indent with tabs instead of spaces, set at 8 columns
-
80-column lines
-
Opening braces on the end of a line, except for functions
This style can mostly be verified with 'astyle' as follows:
astyle --style=linux --indent=tab=8 --indent=force-tab=8
See C++ Style and Conventions.
If you are making a nontrivial change, you should plan how to introduce it to the OpenBMC development community.
If you are planning a new function, you should get agreement that your change will be accepted. As early as you can, introduce the change via the OpenBMC Discord server or email list to start the discussion. You may find a better way to do what you need.
If the feedback seems favorable or requests more details, continue by submitting the design to gerrit starting with a copy of the design_template.
We use git for almost everything. Most projects in OpenBMC use Gerrit to review patches. Changes to an upstream project (e.g. Yocto Project, systemd, or the Linux kernel) might need to be sent as patches or a git pull request.
A good commit does exactly one thing. We prefer many small, atomic commits to one large commit which makes many functional changes.
- Too large: "convert foo to new API; also fix CVE 1234 in bar"
- Too small: "move abc.h to top of include list" and "move xyz.h to bottom of include list"
- Just right: "convert foo to new API" and "convert foo from tab to space"
Other commit tips:
- If your change has a specification, sketch out your ideas first and work to get that accepted before completing the details.
- Work at most a few days before seeking review.
- Commit and review header files before writing code.
- Commit and review each implementation module separately.
Often, creating small commits this way results in many commits that are dependent on prior commits; Gerrit handles this situation well, so feel free to push commits which are based on your change still in review. However, when possible, your commit should stand alone on top of master - "Fix whitespace in bar()" does not need to depend on "refactor foo()". Said differently, ensure that topics that are not related to each other semantically are also not related to each other in Git until they are merged into master.
When pushing a stack of patches, these commits will show up with that same relationship in Gerrit. This means that each patch must be merged in order of that relationship. So if one of the patches in the middle needs to be changed, all the patches from that point on would need to be pushed to maintain the relationship. This will effectively rebase the unchanged patches, which would in turn trigger a new CI build. Ideally, changes from the entire patchset could be done all in one go to reduce unnecessary rebasing.
When someone makes a comment on your commit in Gerrit, modify that commit and
send it again to Gerrit. This typically involves git rebase --interactive or
git commit --amend, for which there are many guides online. As mentioned in
the paragraph above, when possible you should make changes to multiple patches
in the same stack before you push, in order to minimize CI and notification
churn from the rebase operations.
Commits which include changes that can be tested by a unit test should also include a unit test to exercise that change, within the same commit. Unit tests should be clearly written - even more so than production code, unit tests are meant primarily to be read by humans - and should test both good and bad behaviors. Refer to the testing documentation for help writing tests, as well as best practices.
Ensure that your patch doesn't change unrelated areas. Be careful of accidental whitespace changes - this makes review unnecessarily difficult.
Your commit message should explain:
- Concisely, what change are you making? e.g. "libpldm: Add APIs to enable PLDM Requester" This first line of your commit message is the subject line.
- Comprehensively, why are you making that change? In some cases, like a small refactor, the why is fairly obvious. But in cases like the inclusion of a new feature, you should explain why the feature is needed.
- Concisely, how did you test? (see below).
Try to include the component you are changing at the front of your subject line; this typically comes in the form of the class, module, handler, or directory you are modifying. e.g. "apphandler: refactor foo to new API"
Loosely, we try to follow the 50/72 rule for commit messages - that is, the subject line should not exceed 50 characters and the body should not exceed 72 characters. This is common practice in many projects which use Git.
All commit messages must include a "Signed-off-by" line, which indicates that you the contributor have agreed to the Developer Certificate of Origin (see below). This line must include the full name you commonly use, often a given name and a family name or surname. (ok: Sam Samuelsson, Robert A. Heinlein; not ok: xXthorXx, Sam, RAH)
Each commit is expected to be tested. The expectation of testing may vary from subproject to subproject, but will typically include running all applicable automated tests and performing manual testing. Each commit should be tested separately, even if they are submitted together (an exception is when commits to different projects depend on each other).
Commit messages should include a "Tested" field describing how you tested the code changes in the patch. Example:
Tested: I ran unit tests with "make check" (added 2 new tests) and manually
tested on Witherspoon that Foo daemon no longer crashes at boot.
If the change required manual testing, describe what you did and what happened; if it used to do something else before your change, describe that too. If the change can be validated entirely by running unit tests, say so in the "Tested:" field.
The guidelines in the Linux kernel are very useful:
https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/submitting-patches.html
https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/submit-checklist.html
Your contribution will generally need to be reviewed before being accepted.
The OpenBMC Gerrit server supports GitHub credentials, its link is:
https://gerrit.openbmc.org/#/q/status:open
One time setup: Login to the WebUI with your GitHub credentials and verify on your Account Settings that your SSH keys were imported:
https://gerrit.openbmc.org/#/settings/
Most repositories are supported by the Gerrit server, the current list can be found under Projects -> List:
https://gerrit.openbmc.org/#/admin/projects/
If you're going to be working with Gerrit often, it's useful to create an SSH host block in ~/.ssh/config. Ex:
Host openbmc.gerrit
Hostname gerrit.openbmc.org
Port 29418
User your_github_id
From your OpenBMC git repository, add a remote to the Gerrit server, where 'openbmc_repo' is the current git repository you're working on, such as phosphor-state-manager, and 'openbmc.gerrit' is the name of the Host previously added:
git remote add gerrit ssh://openbmc.gerrit/openbmc/openbmc_repo
Alternatively, you can encode all the data in the URL:
git remote add gerrit ssh://[email protected]:29418/openbmc/openbmc_repo
Then add the default branch for pushes to this remote:
git config remote.gerrit.push HEAD:refs/for/master
Gerrit uses Change-Ids to identify commits that belong to the same review. Configure your git repository to automatically add a Change-Id to your commit messages. The steps are:
gitdir=$(git rev-parse --git-dir)
scp -p -P 29418 openbmc.gerrit:hooks/commit-msg ${gitdir}/hooks
To submit a change set, commit your changes, and push to the Gerrit server, where 'gerrit' is the name of the remote added with the git remote add command:
git push gerrit
Sometimes you need to specify a topic (especially when working on a feature that spans across few projects) or (un)mark the change as Work-in-Progress. For that refer to Gerrit documentation.
Gerrit will show you the URL link to your review. You can also find your reviews from the OpenBMC Gerrit server search bar or menu (All > Open, or My > Changes).
Invite reviewers to review your changes. Each OpenBMC repository has
an OWNERS file that lists required reviewers who are subject matter
experts. Those reviewers may add additional reviewers. To add
reviewers from the Gerrit web page, click the "add reviewers" icon by
the list of reviewers.
You are expected to respond to all comments. And remember to use the "reply" button to publish your replies for others to see.
The review results in the proposed change being accepted, rejected for
rework, or abandoned. When you re-work your change, remember to use
git commit --amend so Gerrit handles the update as a new patch of
the same review.
Each repository is governed by a small group of maintainers who are leaders with expertise in their area. They are responsible for reviewing changes and maintaining the quality of the code. You'll need a maintainer to accept your change, and they will look to the other reviewers for guidance. When accepted, your change will merge into the OpenBMC project.
Code and commit messages shall not refer to companies' internal documents or systems (including bug trackers). Other developers may not have access to these, making future maintenance difficult.
Code contributed to OpenBMC must build from the publicly available sources, with no dependencies on non-public resources (URLs, repositories, etc).
-
New D-Bus interfaces should be reusable
-
Type signatures should and use the simplest types possible, appropriate for the data passed. For example, don't pass numbers as ASCII strings.
-
D-Bus interfaces are defined in the
phosphor-dbus-interfacesrepository at:https://github.com/openbmc/phosphor-dbus-interfaces
See: http://dbus.freedesktop.org/doc/dbus-api-design.html
There are numerous resources available elsewhere, but a few items that are relevant to OpenBMC work:
-
Do not use
system(<some shell pipeline>). Reading and writing from files should be done with the appropriate system calls.Generally, it's much better to use
fork(); execve()if you do need to spawn a process, especially if you need to provide variable arguments. -
Use the
stdinttypes (eg,uint32_t,int8_t) for data that needs to be a certain size. Use thePRIxxmacros for printf, if necessary. -
Don't assume that
charis signed or unsigned. -
Beware of endian considerations when reading to & writing from C types
-
Declare internal-only functions as
static, declare read-only data asconstwhere possible. -
Ensure that your code compiles without warnings, especially for changes to the kernel.
Contributors who are used to code reviews by their team internal to their own company, or who are not used to code reviews at all, are sometimes surprised by the pace of code reviews in open source projects. Try to keep in mind that those reviewing your patch may be contributing to OpenBMC in a volunteer or partial-time capacity, may be in a timezone far from your own, and may have very deep review queues already of patches which have been waiting longer than yours. Do everything you can to make it easy for the reviewer to review your contribution.
If you feel your patch has been missed entirely, of course, it's alright to email the maintainers (addresses available in OWNERS file) or ping them on Discord - but a reasonable timeframe to do so is on the order of a week, not on the order of hours.
The maintainers' job is to ensure that incoming patches are as correct and easy to maintain as possible. Part of the nature of open source is attrition - contributors can come and go easily - so maintainers tend not to put stock in promises such as "I will add unit tests in a later patch" or "I will be implementing this proposal by the end of next month." This often manifests as reviews which may seem harsh or exacting; please keep in mind that the community is trying to collaborate with you to build a patch that will benefit the project on its own.
By making a contribution to this project, I certify that:
(a) The contribution was created in whole or in part by me and I
have the right to submit it under the open source license
indicated in the file; or
(b) The contribution is based upon previous work that, to the best
of my knowledge, is covered under an appropriate open source
license and I have the right under that license to submit that
work with modifications, whether created in whole or in part
by me, under the same open source license (unless I am
permitted to submit under a different license), as indicated
in the file; or
(c) The contribution was provided directly to me by some other
person who certified (a), (b) or (c) and I have not modified
it.
(d) I understand and agree that this project and the contribution
are public and that a record of the contribution (including all
personal information I submit with it, including my sign-off) is
maintained indefinitely and may be redistributed consistent with
this project or the open source license(s) involved.