This document establishes the formal code review process for ChainLogistics. Code reviews are essential for maintaining code quality, sharing knowledge, and ensuring the stability of the codebase.
- Overview
- Review Workflow
- Review Roles
- Review Requirements
- Code Review Checklists
- Review Standards
- Review Guidelines
- Review Metrics
Code reviews serve multiple purposes:
- Quality Assurance: Catch bugs, security issues, and performance problems before production
- Knowledge Sharing: Help team members understand different parts of the codebase
- Consistency: Ensure code follows project standards and best practices
- Maintainability: Improve long-term maintainability of the codebase
- Onboarding: Help new contributors understand the codebase
All code changes must go through review, including:
- New features
- Bug fixes
- Refactoring
- Documentation changes
- Configuration changes
- Test updates
- Feature Review - New functionality
- Bug Fix Review - Bug corrections
- Security Review - Security-related changes
- Performance Review - Performance optimizations
- Refactoring Review - Code restructuring
- Documentation Review - Documentation updates
Before requesting a code review, the author must:
- Complete all acceptance criteria
- Run all tests locally
- Check for compiler/linter warnings
- Review own changes for obvious issues
- Update relevant documentation
- Add/update tests if applicable
- Ensure commit messages follow conventions
- Verify the PR description is complete
- Create a descriptive PR title
- Fill out the PR template completely
- Link to related issues
- Add appropriate labels
- Assign reviewers based on the area of change
- Request review from at least one team member
The reviewer should:
- Read the PR description to understand context
- Review the changes in a logical order
- Start with high-level design, then implementation details
- Focus on correctness, security, and maintainability
- Provide constructive, specific feedback
- Author responds to all review comments
- Author makes requested changes or provides justification
- Author pushes updates to the same branch
- Author requests re-review when changes are complete
- At least one approval from a maintainer required
- All CI checks must pass
- No outstanding blocking comments
- PR must be up-to-date with main branch
- Squash and merge (or merge commit if history needed)
- Reviewer monitors for any issues
- Author closes related issues
- Team updates documentation if needed
Responsibilities:
- Write clean, documented code
- Write tests for new functionality
- Update documentation
- Respond to review comments promptly
- Make requested changes or provide justification
- Follow project conventions
Responsibilities:
- Review code thoroughly and promptly
- Provide constructive, specific feedback
- Ask questions if something is unclear
- Suggest improvements and alternatives
- Ensure code follows project standards
- Verify tests are adequate
Responsibilities:
- Approve or reject pull requests
- Ensure review process is followed
- Resolve conflicts in review feedback
- Make final merge decisions
- Enforce code quality standards
Responsibilities:
- Review changes in their area of expertise
- Provide deep technical feedback
- Ensure domain-specific correctness
- Suggest architectural improvements
All PRs must have:
- At least one reviewer approval
- All automated checks passing (tests, lint, build)
- No unresolved blocking comments
- Updated documentation (if applicable)
- Tests for new functionality
- Descriptive commit messages
Additional requirements by PR type:
- At least one maintainer approval
- Design document (for large features)
- Tests with >80% coverage for new code
- Updated API documentation
- Performance impact assessment
- Test case reproducing the bug
- Verification that fix resolves the issue
- Regression tests
- Root cause analysis in PR description
- Security expert review
- Security impact assessment
- Vulnerability disclosure (if applicable)
- Security testing
- Maintainer approval
- Performance benchmarks
- Before/after metrics
- Profiling data
- Performance expert review
- No behavior changes
- All existing tests pass
- Refactoring justification
- Migration guide (if breaking)
- Small PRs (<100 lines): Review within 24 hours
- Medium PRs (100-500 lines): Review within 48 hours
- Large PRs (500+ lines): Review within 72 hours
- Complex PRs: Break down into smaller PRs if possible
| Priority | PR Type | SLA |
|---|---|---|
| Critical | Security fixes, production bugs | 4 hours |
| High | Important features, performance | 24 hours |
| Medium | Regular features, improvements | 48 hours |
| Low | Documentation, minor fixes | 1 week |
Code Quality
- Code follows project style guidelines
- No compiler warnings
- No linting errors
- Code is properly formatted
- Complex logic has comments
- Magic numbers replaced with constants
- No dead code or commented-out code
- No debugging code left in
Functionality
- Implementation matches requirements
- Edge cases are handled
- Error handling is comprehensive
- Input validation is present
- Security best practices followed
- Performance is acceptable
- Memory usage is reasonable
Testing
- Unit tests added/updated
- Integration tests added (if applicable)
- E2E tests added (for UI changes)
- Tests cover happy path
- Tests cover error cases
- Test coverage is sufficient (>80% for new code)
- All tests pass locally
Documentation
- Public APIs documented
- Complex algorithms explained
- README updated (if needed)
- API documentation updated (if endpoints changed)
- Changelog updated (if breaking change)
- Comments are accurate and up-to-date
Security
- No secrets or keys committed
- User inputs are validated
- SQL injection prevention in place
- XSS prevention in place (frontend)
- Authentication/authorization correct
- Rate limiting applied (if public API)
- Dependencies are up-to-date
Additional for Soroban Contracts:
- Storage keys are unique and well-named
- State changes are atomic
- Access control is properly implemented
- Error messages are descriptive
- Gas optimization considered
- Events emitted for state changes
- Input validation at contract entry
- Reentrancy protection (if applicable)
- Integer overflow/underflow prevention
- Cross-contract calls handled safely
- WASM size is reasonable
- Test coverage >90%
Additional for Rust/Axum:
- Handler functions are async where appropriate
- Database queries use parameterized statements
- Connection pooling configured
- Error types are comprehensive
- utoipa annotations added for new endpoints
- ToSchema derived for request/response structs
- Rate limiting applied to public endpoints
- CORS configured correctly
- Logging is appropriate (not too verbose)
- Environment variables used for configuration
- Database migrations included
- SQL injection prevention verified
Additional for Next.js/TypeScript:
- Components are reusable and modular
- TypeScript types defined (no
any) - Props interface documented
- State management is appropriate
- Error boundaries implemented
- Loading states handled
- Responsive design verified
- Accessibility (a11y) considered
- Performance optimized (lazy loading, memoization)
- SEO metadata updated (if applicable)
- API error handling is user-friendly
- Form validation is comprehensive
Additional for SQL Changes:
- Migration is reversible
- Migration doesn't destroy data
- Indexes added for query optimization
- Foreign key constraints defined
- Unique constraints where appropriate
- Default values specified
- Data types are appropriate
- Migration tested on sample data
- Rollback plan documented
Readability
- Code should be self-documenting where possible
- Function names should describe what they do
- Variable names should be descriptive
- Complex logic should have explanatory comments
- File structure should be logical
Maintainability
- Code should be modular and loosely coupled
- Functions should be small and focused (single responsibility)
- DRY principle followed (Don't Repeat Yourself)
- Dependencies should be minimal
- Configuration should be externalized
Performance
- Algorithms should be efficient
- Database queries should be optimized
- Caching used where appropriate
- Memory usage should be reasonable
- No unnecessary computations
Security
- Input validation on all user inputs
- Output encoding to prevent XSS
- SQL injection prevention
- Authentication and authorization
- Secrets never committed
- Dependencies regularly updated
Code Comments
- Public APIs must have documentation
- Complex algorithms must be explained
- Non-obvious decisions need comments
- TODO comments should have context and issue numbers
- Comments should explain "why", not "what"
API Documentation
- All endpoints documented with utoipa
- Request/response schemas defined
- Error responses documented
- Examples provided
- Authentication requirements specified
README/Docs
- Setup instructions updated
- Configuration documented
- Breaking changes noted
- Migration guides provided
Coverage Requirements
- New code: >80% coverage
- Critical paths: >90% coverage
- Utility functions: 100% coverage
Test Quality
- Tests should be independent
- Tests should be fast
- Tests should be deterministic
- Tests should have clear names
- Tests should test behavior, not implementation
Be Constructive
- Focus on the code, not the person
- Explain the "why" behind suggestions
- Provide code examples for improvements
- Acknowledge good work
Be Specific
- Point to specific lines of code
- Suggest concrete improvements
- Explain the impact of changes
- Link to relevant documentation
Be Thorough
- Review the entire change, not just the diff
- Consider edge cases
- Think about long-term implications
- Check for security issues
Be Timely
- Respond to review requests promptly
- If you can't review, reassign or comment
- Aim to complete reviews within SLA
Be Receptive
- Accept feedback gracefully
- Ask clarifying questions
- Explain your reasoning if you disagree
- Learn from the review process
Be Responsive
- Respond to comments promptly
- Make requested changes quickly
- Request re-review when ready
- Don't leave PRs hanging
Be Professional
- Don't take feedback personally
- Focus on improving the code
- Thank reviewers for their time
- Help reviewers understand the context
- Review Time: Average time from PR request to approval
- Review Count: Number of reviewers per PR
- Comment Count: Number of review comments per PR
- Cycle Time: Time from PR creation to merge
- Rejection Rate: Percentage of PRs rejected
- Revision Count: Number of revisions per PR
- Test Coverage: Coverage percentage before and after
- Bug Rate: Number of bugs found in production per PR
- Defect Density: Bugs per thousand lines of code
- Review Effectiveness: Bugs caught during review vs. production
- Code Churn: Percentage of code changed within 3 months
- PR Backlog: Number of PRs awaiting review
- Reviewer Availability: Average reviewer capacity
- Merge Frequency: Number of merges per day/week
- Review Participation: Percentage of team members reviewing
- Average review time: <48 hours
- Reviewer participation: >80%
- Test coverage: >80%
- Production bugs from reviewed code: <5%
## Feedback
### Overall
[Brief summary of overall impression]
### Issues
- [ ] **Issue 1**: Description with line reference
- Severity: [Critical/High/Medium/Low]
- Suggestion: What to fix
### Suggestions
- [ ] **Suggestion 1**: Improvement opportunity
- Benefit: Why this helps
### Questions
- [ ] **Question 1**: Something unclear
- Context: Why this matters
### Positive Feedback
- Good job on [specific aspect]
- Nice implementation of [specific feature]## Review Summary
**PR**: #123
**Reviewer**: @username
**Status**: [Approved/Changes Requested]
### Summary
[Brief overview of the review]
### Key Findings
- [ ] Critical issues: 0
- [ ] High priority: 2
- [ ] Medium priority: 3
- [ ] Low priority: 1
### Recommendation
[Approve with minor changes / Request changes / Reject]
### Next Steps
[List of actions needed before merge]- Review not completed within SLA
- Disagreement on technical approach
- Blocking review comments that seem unreasonable
- Security concerns not addressed
- Process violations
- Discuss directly: First try to resolve with the reviewer
- Tag maintainer: If unresolved, tag a maintainer for input
- Team discussion: If still unresolved, bring to team meeting
- Final decision: Maintainer makes final call
Quarterly review of the code review process:
- Collect feedback from team
- Analyze metrics
- Identify bottlenecks
- Implement improvements
Regular training sessions on:
- Code review best practices
- Security review techniques
- Performance optimization
- Testing strategies
Regular evaluation of tools:
- Automated review tools (linters, static analysis)
- Code coverage tools
- Security scanners
- CI/CD integration
For questions about the code review process:
- Lead Maintainer: maintainer@chainlogistics.io
- Team Discord: https://discord.gg/chainlogistics
- GitHub Discussions: https://github.com/ChainLojistics/ChainLogistics/discussions