# Contributing to FutureSDR
We are happy that you consider contributing the project!
There are opportunities to contribute to FutureSDR 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.
## 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 discovered a bug, creating a new issue in the [issue tracker][issue] 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 a
concrete and reviewable manner.
[issue]: https://github.com/futuresdr/futuresdr/issues
**Anybody can participate in any stage of contribution**. We urge you to
participate in the discussion around bugs and participate in reviewing PRs.
### Asking for General Help
If you have reviewed existing documentation and still have questions or are
having problems, you can [open a discussion] 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.
[open a discussion]: https://github.com/futuresdr/futuresdr/discussions/new
### Submitting a Bug Report
When opening a new issue in the issue tracker, you will be presented with a
basic 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 that are introduced by external
dependencies, test cases should be limited, as much as possible, to using only
FutureSDR APIs.
See [How to create a Minimal, Complete, and Verifiable example][mcve].
[mcve]: https://stackoverflow.com/help/mcve
### 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 project.
## Pull Requests
Pull Requests are the way concrete changes are made to the code, documentation,
and dependencies in the repository.
Even tiny pull requests (e.g., one character pull request fixing a typo in API
documentation) are greatly appreciated. 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.
### Tests
If the change being proposed alters code (as opposed to only documentation, for
example), it is either adding new functionality or it is fixing existing, broken
functionality. In both of these cases, the pull request should include one or
more tests to ensure that FutureSDR does not regress in the future.
### 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
A good commit message should describe what changed and why.
1. The first line should:
* contain a short description of the change (preferably 50 characters or less,
and no more than 72 characters)
* be entirely in lowercase with the exception of proper nouns, acronyms, and
the words that refer to code, like function/variable names
* be prefixed with the name of the module or sub crate being changed
Examples:
* pmt: add variant for f64 vectors
* flowgraph: make flowgraph handle clone-able
2. Keep the second line blank.
3. Wrap all other lines at 72 columns (except for long URLs).
4. If your patch fixes an open issue, you can add a reference to it at the end
of the log. Use the `Fixes: #` prefix and the issue number. For other
references use `Refs: #`. `Refs` may include multiple issues, separated by a
comma.
Examples:
- `Fixes: #1337`
- `Refs: #1234`
### 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.
**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 might be added to the
commit message (e.g., links to the Pull Request and relevant Issues). The commit
history of your Pull Request, however, will stay intact on the Pull Request
page.
## Reviewing Pull Requests
** Everyone is welcome to review any pull request**.
All 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 the project?
2. Does this change make FutureSDR 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
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 FutureSDR better, but the individual might just not
want to have anything to do with FutureSDR 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.rs contributing guide][tokio]_.
[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]: https://github.com/tokio-rs/tokio/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md