pepijnve commented on code in PR #24051: URL: https://github.com/apache/datafusion/pull/24051#discussion_r3718906880
########## docs/source/contributor-guide/pr_review.md: ########## @@ -0,0 +1,234 @@ +<!--- + Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one + or more contributor license agreements. See the NOTICE file + distributed with this work for additional information + regarding copyright ownership. The ASF licenses this file + to you under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the + "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance + with the License. You may obtain a copy of the License at + + http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 + + Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, + software distributed under the License is distributed on an + "AS IS" BASIS, WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY + KIND, either express or implied. See the License for the + specific language governing permissions and limitations + under the License. +--> + +# Reviewing Pull Requests + +When reviewing PRs, our primary goal is to improve DataFusion and its community +together. PR feedback should be constructive and help improve the code as well +as the understanding of the contributor. + +Review bandwidth is currently our most limited resource, and reviews from the +broader community are both welcomed and encouraged. Reviewing PRs is a great way +to learn the codebase, and you do not need to be a committer to leave valuable +review feedback. In fact, one of the best ways to become a committer is to +thoughtfully review other PRs. + +Please ensure any comments you leave contain a rationale and suggested +alternative -- it is frustrating to be told "don't do it this way" without any +clear reason or alternative provided. + +The criteria in this guide are also a useful checklist when preparing your own +PR for review. + +## PR Review Mechanics + +Some helpful links: + +- [PRs Waiting for Review] on GitHub +- [Approved PRs Waiting for Merge] on GitHub + +[prs waiting for review]: https://github.com/apache/datafusion/pulls?q=is%3Apr+is%3Aopen+-review%3Aapproved+-is%3Adraft+ +[approved prs waiting for merge]: https://github.com/apache/datafusion/pulls?q=is%3Apr+is%3Aopen+review%3Aapproved+-is%3Adraft + +The overall PR lifecycle (CI triggering, approval, the 24-hour rule for +"major" PRs, and merging) is described in the +[Pull Request Overview](index.md#pull-request-overview) section of the +contributor guide. + +Practical tips: + +1. Check out the changes locally to explore them in your IDE or with an + agent, e.g. `gh pr checkout <PR number>` using the [GitHub CLI]. +2. There is normally no need to rerun tests locally that CI has already run. +3. Leave comments on specific lines of the diff where possible, so the + discussion has context. +4. If you review a PR but don't feel confident approving it, leaving comments + is still valuable: a partial review (e.g. "I reviewed the tests and they + look good") helps the next reviewer focus their time. +5. Anything that does not need to block the current PR can be noted as a + potential follow-up (ideally by filing an issue), keeping the PR focused + and quick to merge. + +[github cli]: https://cli.github.com/ + +## Review the PR Description + +The PR description is often what users and contributors will find when they have +a question about the intention behind a change, or when the code itself is not +clear. The PR description also becomes the extended commit message. + +Check that the description: + +1. Concisely describes the **problem being solved from the user's point of + view**. + +2. Follows the [PR template], and answers the template's questions. + +3. Accurately describes what the PR actually does. + +4. Explicitly calls out any user-facing or API changes (see + [Review the Code](#review-the-code) below). + Review Comment: I do find it useful if the PR description points out the key code changes so that, as a reviewer, you get some context and starting points to know where to start your read through of the code. I agree that you don't want to repeat/describe the entire implementation of course. Reminds me of https://gruhn.me/blog/2026-08-03/. You want to have a high signal-to-noise ratio description of the implementation changes; not a verbose explanation that repeats technical minutiae but doesn't add much information. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
