|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
short-description: Contributing to Meson
|
|
|
|
...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# Contributing to Meson
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A large fraction of Meson is contributed by people outside the core
|
|
|
|
team. This documentation explains some of the design rationales of
|
|
|
|
Meson as well as how to create and submit your patches for inclusion
|
|
|
|
to Meson.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you for your interest in participating to the development.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Submitting patches
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All changes must be submitted as [pull requests to
|
|
|
|
Github](https://github.com/mesonbuild/meson/pulls). This causes them
|
|
|
|
to be run through the CI system. All submissions must pass a full CI
|
|
|
|
test run before they are even considered for submission.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Keeping pull requests up to date
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is possible that while your pull request is being reviewed, other
|
|
|
|
changes are committed to master that cause merge conflicts that must
|
|
|
|
be resolved. The basic rule for this is very simple: keep your pull
|
|
|
|
request up to date using rebase _only_.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Do not merge head back to your branch. Any merge commits in your pull
|
|
|
|
request make it not acceptable for merging into master and you must
|
|
|
|
remove them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Special procedure for new features
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Every new feature requires some extra steps, namely:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- Must include a project test under `test cases/`, or if that's not
|
|
|
|
possible or if the test requires a special environment, it must go
|
|
|
|
into `run_unittests.py`.
|
|
|
|
- Must be registered with the [FeatureChecks framework](Release-notes-for-0.47.0.md#Feature_detection_based_on_meson_version_in_project)
|
|
|
|
that will warn the user if they try to use a new feature while
|
|
|
|
targetting an older meson version.
|
|
|
|
- Needs a release note snippet inside `docs/markdown/snippets/` with
|
|
|
|
a heading and a brief paragraph explaining what the feature does
|
|
|
|
with an example.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Acceptance and merging
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The kind of review and acceptance any merge proposal gets depends on
|
|
|
|
the changes it contains. All pull requests must be reviewed and
|
|
|
|
accepted by someone with commit rights who is not the original
|
|
|
|
submitter. Merge requests can be roughly split into three different
|
|
|
|
categories.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The first one consists of MRs that only change the markdown
|
|
|
|
documentation under `docs/markdown`. Anyone with access rights can
|
|
|
|
push changes to these directly to master. For major changes it is
|
|
|
|
still recommended to create a MR so other people can comment on it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The second group consists of merges that don't change any
|
|
|
|
functionality, fixes to the CI system and bug fixes that have added
|
|
|
|
regression tests (see below) and don't change existing
|
|
|
|
functionality. Once successfully reviewed anyone with merge rights can
|
|
|
|
merge these to master.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The final kind of merges are those that add new functionality or
|
|
|
|
change existing functionality in a backwards incompatible way. These
|
|
|
|
require the approval of the project lead.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In a simplified list form the split would look like the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- members with commit access can do:
|
|
|
|
- documentation changes (directly to master if warranted)
|
|
|
|
- bug fixes that don't change functionality
|
|
|
|
- refactorings
|
|
|
|
- new dependency types
|
|
|
|
- new tool support (e.g. a new Doxygen-kind of tool)
|
|
|
|
- support for new compilers to existing languages
|
|
|
|
- project leader decision is needed for:
|
|
|
|
- new modules
|
|
|
|
- new functions in the Meson language
|
|
|
|
- syntax changes for Meson files
|
|
|
|
- changes breaking backwards compatibility
|
|
|
|
- support for new languages
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Strategy for merging pull requests to trunk
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Meson's merge strategy should fullfill the following guidelines:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- preserve as much history as possible
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- have as little junk in the repo as possible
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- everything in the "master lineage" should always pass all tests
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
These goals are slightly contradictory so the correct thing to do
|
|
|
|
often requires some judgement on part of the person doing the
|
|
|
|
merge. Github provides three different merge options, The rules of
|
|
|
|
thumb for choosing between them goes like this:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- single commit pull requests should always be rebased
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- a pull request with one commit and one "fixup" commit (such as
|
|
|
|
testing something to see if it passes CI) should be squashed
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- large branches with many commits should be merged with a merge
|
|
|
|
commit, especially if one of the commits does not pass all tests
|
|
|
|
(which happens in e.g. large and difficult refactorings)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If in doubt, ask for guidance on IRC.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Tests
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All new features must come with automatic tests that thoroughly prove
|
|
|
|
that the feature is working as expected. Similarly bug fixes must come
|
|
|
|
with a unit test that demonstrates the bug, proves that it has been
|
|
|
|
fixed and prevents the feature from breaking in the future.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sometimes it is difficult to create a unit test for a given bug. If
|
|
|
|
this is the case, note this in your pull request. We may permit bug
|
|
|
|
fix merge requests in these cases. This is done on a case by case
|
|
|
|
basis. Sometimes it may be easier to write the test than convince the
|
|
|
|
maintainers that one is not needed. Exercise judgment and ask for help
|
|
|
|
in problematic cases.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The tests are split into two different parts: unit tests and full
|
|
|
|
project tests. To run all tests, execute `./run_tests.py`. Unit tests
|
|
|
|
can be run with `./run_unittests.py` and project tests with
|
|
|
|
`./run_project_tests.py`.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Each project test is a standalone project that can be compiled on its
|
|
|
|
own. They are all in `test cases` subdirectory. The simplest way to
|
|
|
|
run a single project test is to do something like `./meson.py test\
|
|
|
|
cases/common/1\ trivial builddir`. The one exception to this is `test
|
|
|
|
cases/unit` directory discussed below.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The test cases in the `common` subdirectory are meant to be run always
|
|
|
|
for all backends. They should only depend on C and C++, without any
|
|
|
|
external dependencies such as libraries. Tests that require those are
|
|
|
|
in the `test cases/frameworks` directory. If there is a need for an
|
|
|
|
external program in the common directory, such as a code generator, it
|
|
|
|
should be implemented as a Python script. The goal of test projects is
|
|
|
|
also to provide sample projects that end users can use as a base for
|
|
|
|
their own projects.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All project tests follow the same pattern: they are compiled, tests
|
|
|
|
are run and finally install is run. Passing means that building and
|
|
|
|
tests succeed and installed files match the `installed_files.txt` file
|
|
|
|
in the test's source root. Any tests that require more thorough
|
|
|
|
analysis, such as checking that certain compiler arguments can be
|
|
|
|
found in the command line or that the generated pkg-config files
|
|
|
|
actually work should be done with a unit test.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Projects needed by unit tests are in the `test cases/unit`
|
|
|
|
subdirectory. They are not run as part of `./run_project_tests.py`.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Skipping integration tests
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Meson uses several continuous integration testing systems that have slightly
|
|
|
|
different interfaces for indicating a commit should be skipped.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Continuous integration systems currently used:
|
|
|
|
- [Travis-CI](https://docs.travis-ci.com/user/customizing-the-build#skipping-a-build)
|
|
|
|
allows `[skip ci]` anywhere in the commit messages.
|
|
|
|
- [Azure Pipelines](https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/devops/pipelines/scripts/git-commands?view=vsts&tabs=yaml#how-do-i-avoid-triggering-a-ci-build-when-the-script-pushes)
|
|
|
|
allows `***NO_CI***` in the commit message.
|
|
|
|
- [Sider](https://sider.review)
|
|
|
|
runs Flake8 ([see below](#python-coding-style))
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To promote consistent naming policy, use:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- `[skip ci]` in the commit title if you want to disable all integration tests
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Documentation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The `docs` directory contains the full documentation that will be used
|
|
|
|
to generate [the Meson web site](http://mesonbuild.com). Every change
|
|
|
|
in functionality must change the documentation pages. In most cases
|
|
|
|
this means updating the reference documentation page but bigger
|
|
|
|
changes might need changes in other documentation, too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All new functionality needs to have a mention in the release
|
|
|
|
notes. These features should be written in standalone files in the
|
|
|
|
`docs/markdown/snippets` directory. The release manager will combine
|
|
|
|
them into one page when doing the release.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[Integration tests should be disabled](#skipping-integration-tests) for
|
|
|
|
documentation-only commits by putting `[skip ci]` into commit title.
|
|
|
|
Reviewers should ask contributors to put `[skip ci]` into the title because
|
|
|
|
tests are run again after merge for `master`.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Python Coding style
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Meson follows the basic Python coding style. Additional rules are the
|
|
|
|
following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- indent 4 spaces, no tabs ever
|
|
|
|
- indent meson.build files with two spaces
|
|
|
|
- try to keep the code as simple as possible
|
|
|
|
- contact the mailing list before embarking on large scale projects
|
|
|
|
to avoid wasted effort
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Meson uses Flake8 for style guide enforcement. The Flake8 options for
|
|
|
|
the project are contained in setup.cfg.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To run Flake8 on your local clone of Meson:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
```console
|
|
|
|
$ python3 -m pip install flake8
|
|
|
|
$ cd meson
|
|
|
|
$ flake8
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To run it automatically before committing:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
```console
|
|
|
|
$ flake8 --install-hook=git
|
|
|
|
$ git config --bool flake8.strict true
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## C/C++ coding style
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Meson has a bunch of test code in several languages. The rules for
|
|
|
|
those are simple.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- indent 4 spaces, no tabs ever
|
|
|
|
- brace always on the same line as if/for/else/function definition
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## External dependencies
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The goal of Meson is to be as easily usable as possible. The user
|
|
|
|
experience should be "get Python3 and Ninja, run", even on
|
|
|
|
Windows. Unfortunately this means that we can't have dependencies on
|
|
|
|
projects outside of Python's standard library. This applies only to
|
|
|
|
core functionality, though. For additional helper programs etc the use
|
|
|
|
of external dependencies may be ok. If you feel that you are dealing
|
|
|
|
with this kind of case, please contact the developers first with your
|
|
|
|
use case.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Turing completeness
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The main design principle of Meson is that the definition language is
|
|
|
|
not Turing complete. Any change that would make Meson Turing complete
|
|
|
|
is automatically rejected. In practice this means that defining your
|
|
|
|
own functions inside `meson.build` files and generalised loops will
|
|
|
|
not be added to the language.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Do I need to sign a CLA in order to contribute?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No you don't. All contributions are welcome.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## No lingering state
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Meson operates in much the same way as functional programming
|
|
|
|
languages. It has inputs, which include `meson.build` files, values of
|
|
|
|
options, compilers and so on. These are passed to a function, which
|
|
|
|
generates output build definition. This function is pure, which means that:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- for any given input the output is always the same
|
|
|
|
- running Meson twice in a row _always_ produce the same output in both runs
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The latter one is important, because it enforces that there is no way
|
|
|
|
for "secret state" to pass between consecutive invocations of
|
|
|
|
Meson. This is the reason why, for example, there is no `set_option`
|
|
|
|
function even though there is a `get_option` one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If this were not the case, we could never know if the build output is
|
|
|
|
"stable". For example suppose there were a `set_option` function and a
|
|
|
|
boolean variable `flipflop`. Then you could do this:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
```meson
|
|
|
|
set_option('flipflop', not get_option('flipflop'))
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This piece of code would never converge. Every Meson run would change
|
|
|
|
the value of the option and thus the output you get out of this build
|
|
|
|
definition would be random.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Meson does not permit this by forbidding these sorts of covert channels.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is one exception to this rule. Users can call into external
|
|
|
|
commands with `run_command`. If the output of that command does not
|
|
|
|
behave like a pure function, this problem arises. Meson does not try
|
|
|
|
to guard against this case, it is the responsibility of the user to
|
|
|
|
make sure the commands they run behave like pure functions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Environment variables
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Environment variables are like global variables, except that they are
|
|
|
|
also hidden by default. Envvars should be avoided whenever possible,
|
|
|
|
all functionality should be exposed in better ways such as command
|
|
|
|
line switches.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Random design points that fit nowhere else
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- All features should follow the 90/9/1 rule. 90% of all use cases
|
|
|
|
should be easy, 9% should be possible and it is totally fine to not
|
|
|
|
support the final 1% if it would make things too complicated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- Any build directory will have at most two toolchains: one native and
|
|
|
|
one cross.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- Prefer specific solutions to generic frameworks. Solve the end
|
|
|
|
user's problems rather than providing them tools to do it
|
|
|
|
themselves.
|