-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 5
Commit
This commit does not belong to any branch on this repository, and may belong to a fork outside of the repository.
Merge pull request #1 from alloy-rs/yash/eip7702
feat: eip7702
- Loading branch information
Showing
15 changed files
with
1,030 additions
and
11 deletions.
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1,319 @@ | ||
# Contributing to Alloy | ||
|
||
:balloon: Thanks for your help improving the project! We are so happy to have | ||
you! | ||
|
||
There are opportunities to contribute to Alloy 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. | ||
|
||
The [dev channel][dev] is available for any concerns not covered in this guide, | ||
please join us! | ||
|
||
[dev]: https://t.me/ethers_rs | ||
|
||
## Conduct | ||
|
||
The Alloy project adheres to the [Rust Code of Conduct][coc]. This describes | ||
the _minimum_ behavior expected from all contributors. Instances of violations | ||
of the Code of Conduct can be reported by contacting the project team at | ||
[james@prestwich](mailto:james@prestwi.ch). | ||
|
||
[coc]: https://www.rust-lang.org/policies/code-of-conduct | ||
|
||
## 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 Alloy, creating a new issue in the Alloy | ||
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 | ||
correctly. | ||
|
||
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 | ||
Alloy 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. | ||
|
||
### Contributions Related to Spelling and Grammar | ||
|
||
At this time, we will not be accepting contributions that only fix spelling or grammatical errors in documentation, code or | ||
elsewhere. | ||
|
||
### 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 Alloy 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 Alloy 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 Alloy project. | ||
|
||
## Pull Requests | ||
|
||
Pull Requests are the way concrete changes are made to the code, documentation, | ||
and dependencies in the Alloy repository. | ||
|
||
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 increase the likelihood of the PR getting | ||
merged. | ||
|
||
When opening a PR **please select the "Allow Edits From Maintainers" option**. | ||
Alloy maintains strict standards for code quality and style, as well as | ||
commit signing. This option allows us to make small changes to your PR to bring | ||
it in line with these standards. It helps us get your PR in faster, and with | ||
less work from you. | ||
|
||
### Contributions Related to Spelling and Grammar | ||
|
||
At this time, we will not be accepting contributions that only fix spelling or grammatical errors in documentation, code or | ||
elsewhere. | ||
|
||
### Cargo Commands | ||
|
||
This section lists some commonly needed commands. | ||
|
||
```sh | ||
cargo check --all-features | ||
cargo +nightly fmt --all | ||
cargo build --all-features | ||
cargo test --all-features | ||
cargo test --no-default-features | ||
cargo +nightly clippy --all-features | ||
``` | ||
|
||
> You need to have [geth](https://geth.ethereum.org/downloads) and [Anvil](https://book.getfoundry.sh/getting-started/installation) to be able to run the tests | ||
### Tests | ||
|
||
If the change being proposed alters code (as opposed to only documentation for | ||
example), it is either adding new functionality to Alloy or it is fixing | ||
existing, broken functionality. In both of these cases, the pull request should | ||
include one or more tests to ensure that Alloy does not regress in the | ||
future. | ||
|
||
#### Unit Tests | ||
|
||
Functions which have very specific tasks should be unit tested. We encourage | ||
using table tests to cover a large number of cases in a succinct readable | ||
manner. | ||
|
||
#### Integration tests | ||
|
||
Integration tests go in the same crate as the code they are testing, in the | ||
`tests/` directory. | ||
|
||
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. | ||
|
||
Lines that start with `/// #` are removed when the documentation is generated. | ||
They are only there to get the test to run. Use this trick to keep your example | ||
succinct in the user-facing tests :) | ||
|
||
### 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-squashing)). | ||
|
||
#### Commit message guidelines | ||
|
||
Commit messages should follow the | ||
[Conventional Commits](https://www.conventionalcommits.org/en/v1.0.0/) | ||
specification. | ||
|
||
Here's a few examples from the master branch's commit log: | ||
|
||
- feat(abigen): support empty events | ||
- chore: bump crypto deps | ||
- test: simplify test cleanup | ||
- fmt: run rustfmt | ||
|
||
### 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 | ||
feedback. | ||
|
||
**Once the PR is open, do not rebase the commits**. See | ||
[Commit Squashing](#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 Alloy community member is welcome to review any pull request**. | ||
|
||
All Alloy 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 Alloy? | ||
2. Does this change make Alloy 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 | ||
Alloy 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 Alloy better, but the individual might just | ||
not want to have anything to do with Alloy 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 [Tokio contributing guide]_. | ||
|
||
[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 | ||
[Tokio contributing guide]: https://github.com/tokio-rs/tokio/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md |
Oops, something went wrong.