465 lines
21 KiB
Markdown
465 lines
21 KiB
Markdown
|
<!-- use this template to generate the contributor docs with the following command: `$ lingo run docs --template CONTRIBUTING_TEMPLATE.md --output CONTRIBUTING.md` -->
|
||
|
# Contributing to excelize
|
||
|
|
||
|
Want to hack on excelize? Awesome! This page contains information about reporting issues as well as some tips and
|
||
|
guidelines useful to experienced open source contributors. Finally, make sure
|
||
|
you read our [community guidelines](#community-guidelines) before you
|
||
|
start participating.
|
||
|
|
||
|
## Topics
|
||
|
|
||
|
* [Reporting Security Issues](#reporting-security-issues)
|
||
|
* [Design and Cleanup Proposals](#design-and-cleanup-proposals)
|
||
|
* [Reporting Issues](#reporting-other-issues)
|
||
|
* [Quick Contribution Tips and Guidelines](#quick-contribution-tips-and-guidelines)
|
||
|
* [Community Guidelines](#community-guidelines)
|
||
|
|
||
|
## Reporting security issues
|
||
|
|
||
|
The excelize maintainers take security seriously. If you discover a security
|
||
|
issue, please bring it to their attention right away!
|
||
|
|
||
|
Please **DO NOT** file a public issue, instead send your report privately to
|
||
|
[xuri.me](https://xuri.me).
|
||
|
|
||
|
Security reports are greatly appreciated and we will publicly thank you for it.
|
||
|
We currently do not offer a paid security bounty program, but are not
|
||
|
ruling it out in the future.
|
||
|
|
||
|
## Reporting other issues
|
||
|
|
||
|
A great way to contribute to the project is to send a detailed report when you
|
||
|
encounter an issue. We always appreciate a well-written, thorough bug report,
|
||
|
and will thank you for it!
|
||
|
|
||
|
Check that [our issue database](https://github.com/360EntSecGroup-Skylar/excelize/issues)
|
||
|
doesn't already include that problem or suggestion before submitting an issue.
|
||
|
If you find a match, you can use the "subscribe" button to get notified on
|
||
|
updates. Do *not* leave random "+1" or "I have this too" comments, as they
|
||
|
only clutter the discussion, and don't help resolving it. However, if you
|
||
|
have ways to reproduce the issue or have additional information that may help
|
||
|
resolving the issue, please leave a comment.
|
||
|
|
||
|
When reporting issues, always include the output of `go env`.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Also include the steps required to reproduce the problem if possible and
|
||
|
applicable. This information will help us review and fix your issue faster.
|
||
|
When sending lengthy log-files, consider posting them as a gist [https://gist.github.com](https://gist.github.com).
|
||
|
Don't forget to remove sensitive data from your logfiles before posting (you can
|
||
|
replace those parts with "REDACTED").
|
||
|
|
||
|
## Quick contribution tips and guidelines
|
||
|
|
||
|
This section gives the experienced contributor some tips and guidelines.
|
||
|
|
||
|
### Pull requests are always welcome
|
||
|
|
||
|
Not sure if that typo is worth a pull request? Found a bug and know how to fix
|
||
|
it? Do it! We will appreciate it. Any significant improvement should be
|
||
|
documented as [a GitHub issue](https://github.com/360EntSecGroup-Skylar/excelize/issues) before
|
||
|
anybody starts working on it.
|
||
|
|
||
|
We are always thrilled to receive pull requests. We do our best to process them
|
||
|
quickly. If your pull request is not accepted on the first try,
|
||
|
don't get discouraged!
|
||
|
|
||
|
### Design and cleanup proposals
|
||
|
|
||
|
You can propose new designs for existing excelize features. You can also design
|
||
|
entirely new features. We really appreciate contributors who want to refactor or
|
||
|
otherwise cleanup our project.
|
||
|
|
||
|
We try hard to keep excelize lean and focused. Excelize can't do everything for
|
||
|
everybody. This means that we might decide against incorporating a new feature.
|
||
|
However, there might be a way to implement that feature *on top of* excelize.
|
||
|
|
||
|
### Conventions
|
||
|
|
||
|
Fork the repository and make changes on your fork in a feature branch:
|
||
|
|
||
|
* If it's a bug fix branch, name it XXXX-something where XXXX is the number of
|
||
|
the issue.
|
||
|
* If it's a feature branch, create an enhancement issue to announce
|
||
|
your intentions, and name it XXXX-something where XXXX is the number of the
|
||
|
issue.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Submit unit tests for your changes. Go has a great test framework built in; use
|
||
|
it! Take a look at existing tests for inspiration. Run the full test on your branch before
|
||
|
submitting a pull request.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Update the documentation when creating or modifying features. Test your
|
||
|
documentation changes for clarity, concision, and correctness, as well as a
|
||
|
clean documentation build.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Write clean code. Universally formatted code promotes ease of writing, reading,
|
||
|
and maintenance. Always run `gofmt -s -w file.go` on each changed file before
|
||
|
committing your changes. Most editors have plug-ins that do this automatically.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Pull request descriptions should be as clear as possible and include a reference
|
||
|
to all the issues that they address.
|
||
|
|
||
|
### Successful Changes
|
||
|
|
||
|
Before contributing large or high impact changes, make the effort to coordinate
|
||
|
with the maintainers of the project before submitting a pull request. This
|
||
|
prevents you from doing extra work that may or may not be merged.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Large PRs that are just submitted without any prior communication are unlikely
|
||
|
to be successful.
|
||
|
|
||
|
While pull requests are the methodology for submitting changes to code, changes
|
||
|
are much more likely to be accepted if they are accompanied by additional
|
||
|
engineering work. While we don't define this explicitly, most of these goals
|
||
|
are accomplished through communication of the design goals and subsequent
|
||
|
solutions. Often times, it helps to first state the problem before presenting
|
||
|
solutions.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Typically, the best methods of accomplishing this are to submit an issue,
|
||
|
stating the problem. This issue can include a problem statement and a
|
||
|
checklist with requirements. If solutions are proposed, alternatives should be
|
||
|
listed and eliminated. Even if the criteria for elimination of a solution is
|
||
|
frivolous, say so.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Larger changes typically work best with design documents. These are focused on
|
||
|
providing context to the design at the time the feature was conceived and can
|
||
|
inform future documentation contributions.
|
||
|
|
||
|
### Commit Messages
|
||
|
|
||
|
Commit messages must start with a capitalized and short summary
|
||
|
written in the imperative, followed by an optional, more detailed explanatory
|
||
|
text which is separated from the summary by an empty line.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Commit messages should follow best practices, including explaining the context
|
||
|
of the problem and how it was solved, including in caveats or follow up changes
|
||
|
required. They should tell the story of the change and provide readers
|
||
|
understanding of what led to it.
|
||
|
|
||
|
In practice, the best approach to maintaining a nice commit message is to
|
||
|
leverage a `git add -p` and `git commit --amend` to formulate a solid
|
||
|
changeset. This allows one to piece together a change, as information becomes
|
||
|
available.
|
||
|
|
||
|
If you squash a series of commits, don't just submit that. Re-write the commit
|
||
|
message, as if the series of commits was a single stroke of brilliance.
|
||
|
|
||
|
That said, there is no requirement to have a single commit for a PR, as long as
|
||
|
each commit tells the story. For example, if there is a feature that requires a
|
||
|
package, it might make sense to have the package in a separate commit then have
|
||
|
a subsequent commit that uses it.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Remember, you're telling part of the story with the commit message. Don't make
|
||
|
your chapter weird.
|
||
|
|
||
|
### Review
|
||
|
|
||
|
Code review comments may be added to your pull request. Discuss, then make the
|
||
|
suggested modifications and push additional commits to your feature branch. Post
|
||
|
a comment after pushing. New commits show up in the pull request automatically,
|
||
|
but the reviewers are notified only when you comment.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Pull requests must be cleanly rebased on top of master without multiple branches
|
||
|
mixed into the PR.
|
||
|
|
||
|
**Git tip**: If your PR no longer merges cleanly, use `rebase master` in your
|
||
|
feature branch to update your pull request rather than `merge master`.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Before you make a pull request, squash your commits into logical units of work
|
||
|
using `git rebase -i` and `git push -f`. A logical unit of work is a consistent
|
||
|
set of patches that should be reviewed together: for example, upgrading the
|
||
|
version of a vendored dependency and taking advantage of its now available new
|
||
|
feature constitute two separate units of work. Implementing a new function and
|
||
|
calling it in another file constitute a single logical unit of work. The very
|
||
|
high majority of submissions should have a single commit, so if in doubt: squash
|
||
|
down to one.
|
||
|
|
||
|
After every commit, make sure the test passes. Include documentation
|
||
|
changes in the same pull request so that a revert would remove all traces of
|
||
|
the feature or fix.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Include an issue reference like `Closes #XXXX` or `Fixes #XXXX` in commits that
|
||
|
close an issue. Including references automatically closes the issue on a merge.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Please see the [Coding Style](#coding-style) for further guidelines.
|
||
|
|
||
|
### Merge approval
|
||
|
|
||
|
The excelize maintainers use LGTM (Looks Good To Me) in comments on the code review to
|
||
|
indicate acceptance.
|
||
|
|
||
|
### Sign your work
|
||
|
|
||
|
The sign-off is a simple line at the end of the explanation for the patch. Your
|
||
|
signature certifies that you wrote the patch or otherwise have the right to pass
|
||
|
it on as an open-source patch. The rules are pretty simple: if you can certify
|
||
|
the below (from [developercertificate.org](http://developercertificate.org/)):
|
||
|
|
||
|
```text
|
||
|
Developer Certificate of Origin
|
||
|
Version 1.1
|
||
|
|
||
|
Copyright (C) 2004, 2006 The Linux Foundation and its contributors.
|
||
|
1 Letterman Drive
|
||
|
Suite D4700
|
||
|
San Francisco, CA, 94129
|
||
|
|
||
|
Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this
|
||
|
license document, but changing it is not allowed.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Developer's Certificate of Origin 1.1
|
||
|
|
||
|
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.
|
||
|
```
|
||
|
|
||
|
Then you just add a line to every git commit message:
|
||
|
|
||
|
Signed-off-by: Ri Xu https://xuri.me
|
||
|
|
||
|
Use your real name (sorry, no pseudonyms or anonymous contributions.)
|
||
|
|
||
|
If you set your `user.name` and `user.email` git configs, you can sign your
|
||
|
commit automatically with `git commit -s`.
|
||
|
|
||
|
### How can I become a maintainer
|
||
|
|
||
|
First, all maintainers have 3 things
|
||
|
|
||
|
* They share responsibility in the project's success.
|
||
|
* They have made a long-term, recurring time investment to improve the project.
|
||
|
* They spend that time doing whatever needs to be done, not necessarily what
|
||
|
is the most interesting or fun.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Maintainers are often under-appreciated, because their work is harder to appreciate.
|
||
|
It's easy to appreciate a really cool and technically advanced feature. It's harder
|
||
|
to appreciate the absence of bugs, the slow but steady improvement in stability,
|
||
|
or the reliability of a release process. But those things distinguish a good
|
||
|
project from a great one.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Don't forget: being a maintainer is a time investment. Make sure you
|
||
|
will have time to make yourself available. You don't have to be a
|
||
|
maintainer to make a difference on the project!
|
||
|
|
||
|
If you want to become a meintainer, contact [xuri.me](https://xuri.me) and given a introduction of you.
|
||
|
|
||
|
## Community guidelines
|
||
|
|
||
|
We want to keep the community awesome, growing and collaborative. We need
|
||
|
your help to keep it that way. To help with this we've come up with some general
|
||
|
guidelines for the community as a whole:
|
||
|
|
||
|
* Be nice: Be courteous, respectful and polite to fellow community members:
|
||
|
no regional, racial, gender, or other abuse will be tolerated. We like
|
||
|
nice people way better than mean ones!
|
||
|
|
||
|
* Encourage diversity and participation: Make everyone in our community feel
|
||
|
welcome, regardless of their background and the extent of their
|
||
|
contributions, and do everything possible to encourage participation in
|
||
|
our community.
|
||
|
|
||
|
* Keep it legal: Basically, don't get us in trouble. Share only content that
|
||
|
you own, do not share private or sensitive information, and don't break
|
||
|
the law.
|
||
|
|
||
|
* Stay on topic: Make sure that you are posting to the correct channel and
|
||
|
avoid off-topic discussions. Remember when you update an issue or respond
|
||
|
to an email you are potentially sending to a large number of people. Please
|
||
|
consider this before you update. Also remember that nobody likes spam.
|
||
|
|
||
|
* Don't send email to the maintainers: There's no need to send email to the
|
||
|
maintainers to ask them to investigate an issue or to take a look at a
|
||
|
pull request. Instead of sending an email, GitHub mentions should be
|
||
|
used to ping maintainers to review a pull request, a proposal or an
|
||
|
issue.
|
||
|
|
||
|
### Guideline violations — 3 strikes method
|
||
|
|
||
|
The point of this section is not to find opportunities to punish people, but we
|
||
|
do need a fair way to deal with people who are making our community suck.
|
||
|
|
||
|
1. First occurrence: We'll give you a friendly, but public reminder that the
|
||
|
behavior is inappropriate according to our guidelines.
|
||
|
|
||
|
2. Second occurrence: We will send you a private message with a warning that
|
||
|
any additional violations will result in removal from the community.
|
||
|
|
||
|
3. Third occurrence: Depending on the violation, we may need to delete or ban
|
||
|
your account.
|
||
|
|
||
|
**Notes:**
|
||
|
|
||
|
* Obvious spammers are banned on first occurrence. If we don't do this, we'll
|
||
|
have spam all over the place.
|
||
|
|
||
|
* Violations are forgiven after 6 months of good behavior, and we won't hold a
|
||
|
grudge.
|
||
|
|
||
|
* People who commit minor infractions will get some education, rather than
|
||
|
hammering them in the 3 strikes process.
|
||
|
|
||
|
* The rules apply equally to everyone in the community, no matter how much
|
||
|
you've contributed.
|
||
|
|
||
|
* Extreme violations of a threatening, abusive, destructive or illegal nature
|
||
|
will be addressed immediately and are not subject to 3 strikes or forgiveness.
|
||
|
|
||
|
* Contact [xuri.me](https://xuri.me) to report abuse or appeal violations. In the case of
|
||
|
appeals, we know that mistakes happen, and we'll work with you to come up with a
|
||
|
fair solution if there has been a misunderstanding.
|
||
|
|
||
|
## Coding Style
|
||
|
|
||
|
Unless explicitly stated, we follow all coding guidelines from the Go
|
||
|
community. While some of these standards may seem arbitrary, they somehow seem
|
||
|
to result in a solid, consistent codebase.
|
||
|
|
||
|
It is possible that the code base does not currently comply with these
|
||
|
guidelines. We are not looking for a massive PR that fixes this, since that
|
||
|
goes against the spirit of the guidelines. All new contributions should make a
|
||
|
best effort to clean up and make the code base better than they left it.
|
||
|
Obviously, apply your best judgement. Remember, the goal here is to make the
|
||
|
code base easier for humans to navigate and understand. Always keep that in
|
||
|
mind when nudging others to comply.
|
||
|
|
||
|
The rules:
|
||
|
|
||
|
1. All code should be formatted with `gofmt -s`.
|
||
|
2. All code should pass the default levels of
|
||
|
[`golint`](https://github.com/golang/lint).
|
||
|
3. All code should follow the guidelines covered in [Effective
|
||
|
Go](http://golang.org/doc/effective_go.html) and [Go Code Review
|
||
|
Comments](https://github.com/golang/go/wiki/CodeReviewComments).
|
||
|
4. Comment the code. Tell us the why, the history and the context.
|
||
|
5. Document _all_ declarations and methods, even private ones. Declare
|
||
|
expectations, caveats and anything else that may be important. If a type
|
||
|
gets exported, having the comments already there will ensure it's ready.
|
||
|
6. Variable name length should be proportional to its context and no longer.
|
||
|
`noCommaALongVariableNameLikeThisIsNotMoreClearWhenASimpleCommentWouldDo`.
|
||
|
In practice, short methods will have short variable names and globals will
|
||
|
have longer names.
|
||
|
7. No underscores in package names. If you need a compound name, step back,
|
||
|
and re-examine why you need a compound name. If you still think you need a
|
||
|
compound name, lose the underscore.
|
||
|
8. No utils or helpers packages. If a function is not general enough to
|
||
|
warrant its own package, it has not been written generally enough to be a
|
||
|
part of a util package. Just leave it unexported and well-documented.
|
||
|
9. All tests should run with `go test` and outside tooling should not be
|
||
|
required. No, we don't need another unit testing framework. Assertion
|
||
|
packages are acceptable if they provide _real_ incremental value.
|
||
|
10. Even though we call these "rules" above, they are actually just
|
||
|
guidelines. Since you've read all the rules, you now know that.
|
||
|
|
||
|
If you are having trouble getting into the mood of idiomatic Go, we recommend
|
||
|
reading through [Effective Go](https://golang.org/doc/effective_go.html). The
|
||
|
[Go Blog](https://blog.golang.org) is also a great resource. Drinking the
|
||
|
kool-aid is a lot easier than going thirsty.
|
||
|
|
||
|
## Code Review Comments and Effective Go Guidelines
|
||
|
[CodeLingo](https://codelingo.io) automatically checks every pull request against the following guidelines from [Effective Go](https://golang.org/doc/effective_go.html) and [Code Review Comments](https://github.com/golang/go/wiki/CodeReviewComments).
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
### Package Comment
|
||
|
Every package should have a package comment, a block comment preceding the package clause.
|
||
|
For multi-file packages, the package comment only needs to be present in one file, and any one will do.
|
||
|
The package comment should introduce the package and provide information relevant to the package as a
|
||
|
whole. It will appear first on the godoc page and should set up the detailed documentation that follows.
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
### Single Method Interface Name
|
||
|
By convention, one-method interfaces are named by the method name plus an -er suffix
|
||
|
or similar modification to construct an agent noun: Reader, Writer, Formatter, CloseNotifier etc.
|
||
|
|
||
|
There are a number of such names and it's productive to honor them and the function names they capture.
|
||
|
Read, Write, Close, Flush, String and so on have canonical signatures and meanings. To avoid confusion,
|
||
|
don't give your method one of those names unless it has the same signature and meaning. Conversely,
|
||
|
if your type implements a method with the same meaning as a method on a well-known type, give it the
|
||
|
same name and signature; call your string-converter method String not ToString.
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
### Avoid Annotations in Comments
|
||
|
Comments do not need extra formatting such as banners of stars. The generated output
|
||
|
may not even be presented in a fixed-width font, so don't depend on spacing for alignment—godoc,
|
||
|
like gofmt, takes care of that. The comments are uninterpreted plain text, so HTML and other
|
||
|
annotations such as _this_ will reproduce verbatim and should not be used. One adjustment godoc
|
||
|
does do is to display indented text in a fixed-width font, suitable for program snippets.
|
||
|
The package comment for the fmt package uses this to good effect.
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
### Comment First Word as Subject
|
||
|
Doc comments work best as complete sentences, which allow a wide variety of automated presentations.
|
||
|
The first sentence should be a one-sentence summary that starts with the name being declared.
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
### Good Package Name
|
||
|
It's helpful if everyone using the package can use the same name
|
||
|
to refer to its contents, which implies that the package name should
|
||
|
be good: short, concise, evocative. By convention, packages are
|
||
|
given lower case, single-word names; there should be no need for
|
||
|
underscores or mixedCaps. Err on the side of brevity, since everyone
|
||
|
using your package will be typing that name. And don't worry about
|
||
|
collisions a priori. The package name is only the default name for
|
||
|
imports; it need not be unique across all source code, and in the
|
||
|
rare case of a collision the importing package can choose a different
|
||
|
name to use locally. In any case, confusion is rare because the file
|
||
|
name in the import determines just which package is being used.
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
### Avoid Renaming Imports
|
||
|
Avoid renaming imports except to avoid a name collision; good package names
|
||
|
should not require renaming. In the event of collision, prefer to rename the
|
||
|
most local or project-specific import.
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
### Context as First Argument
|
||
|
Values of the context.Context type carry security credentials, tracing information,
|
||
|
deadlines, and cancellation signals across API and process boundaries. Go programs
|
||
|
pass Contexts explicitly along the entire function call chain from incoming RPCs
|
||
|
and HTTP requests to outgoing requests.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Most functions that use a Context should accept it as their first parameter.
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
### Do Not Discard Errors
|
||
|
Do not discard errors using _ variables. If a function returns an error,
|
||
|
check it to make sure the function succeeded. Handle the error, return it, or,
|
||
|
in truly exceptional situations, panic.
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
### Go Error Format
|
||
|
Error strings should not be capitalized (unless beginning with proper nouns
|
||
|
or acronyms) or end with punctuation, since they are usually printed following
|
||
|
other context. That is, use fmt.Errorf("something bad") not fmt.Errorf("Something bad"),
|
||
|
so that log.Printf("Reading %s: %v", filename, err) formats without a spurious
|
||
|
capital letter mid-message. This does not apply to logging, which is implicitly
|
||
|
line-oriented and not combined inside other messages.
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
### Use Crypto Rand
|
||
|
Do not use package math/rand to generate keys, even
|
||
|
throwaway ones. Unseeded, the generator is completely predictable.
|
||
|
Seeded with time.Nanoseconds(), there are just a few bits of entropy.
|
||
|
Instead, use crypto/rand's Reader, and if you need text, print to
|
||
|
hexadecimal or base64
|
||
|
|