428 lines
20 KiB
Markdown
428 lines
20 KiB
Markdown
|
### Table of Contents
|
|||
|
1. [Overview](#Overview)<br />
|
|||
|
2. [Minimum Recommended Skillset](#MinSkillset)<br />
|
|||
|
3. [Required Reading](#ReqReading)<br />
|
|||
|
4. [Development Practices](#DevelopmentPractices)<br />
|
|||
|
4.1. [Share Early, Share Often](#ShareEarly)<br />
|
|||
|
4.2. [Testing](#Testing)<br />
|
|||
|
4.3. [Code Documentation and Commenting](#CodeDocumentation)<br />
|
|||
|
4.4. [Model Git Commit Messages](#ModelGitCommitMessages)<br />
|
|||
|
4.5 [Code Spacing](#CodeSpacing)<br />
|
|||
|
5. [Code Approval Process](#CodeApproval)<br />
|
|||
|
5.1 [Code Review](#CodeReview)<br />
|
|||
|
5.2 [Rework Code (if needed)](#CodeRework)<br />
|
|||
|
5.3 [Acceptance](#CodeAcceptance)<br />
|
|||
|
6. [Contribution Standards](#Standards)<br />
|
|||
|
6.1. [Contribution Checklist](#Checklist)<br />
|
|||
|
6.2. [Licensing of Contributions](#Licensing)<br />
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
<a name="Overview" />
|
|||
|
### 1. Overview
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Developing cryptocurrencies is an exciting endeavor that touches a wide variety
|
|||
|
of areas such as wire protocols, peer-to-peer networking, databases,
|
|||
|
cryptography, language interpretation (transaction scripts), adversarial
|
|||
|
threat-modeling, and RPC systems. They also represent a radical shift to the
|
|||
|
current fiscal system and as a result provide an opportunity to help reshape
|
|||
|
the entire financial system. With the advent of the [Lightning Network
|
|||
|
(LN)](https://lightning.network/), new layers are being constructed upon the
|
|||
|
base blockchain layer which have the potential to aleviate many of the
|
|||
|
limitations and constraints inherent in the design of blockchains. There are
|
|||
|
few projects that offer this level of diversity and impact all in one code
|
|||
|
base.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
However, as exciting as it is, one must keep in mind that cryptocurrencies
|
|||
|
represent real money and introducing bugs and security vulnerabilities can have
|
|||
|
far more dire consequences than in typical projects where having a small bug is
|
|||
|
minimal by comparison. In the world of cryptocurrencies, even the smallest bug
|
|||
|
in the wrong area can cost people a significant amount of money. For this
|
|||
|
reason, the Lightning Network Daemon (lnd) has a formalized and rigorous
|
|||
|
development process (heavily insipred by
|
|||
|
[btcsuite](https://github.com/btcsuite)) which is outlined on this page.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
We highly encourage code contributions, however it is imperative that you adhere
|
|||
|
to the guidelines established on this page.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
<a name="MinSkillset" />
|
|||
|
### 2. Minimum Recommended Skillset
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The following list is a set of core competencies that we recommend you possess
|
|||
|
before you really start attempting to contribute code to the project. These are
|
|||
|
not hard requirements as we will gladly accept code contributions as long as
|
|||
|
they follow the guidelines set forth on this page. That said, if you don't have
|
|||
|
the following basic qualifications you will likely find it quite difficult to
|
|||
|
contribute to the core layers of Lightning. However, there are still a number
|
|||
|
of low hanging fruit which can be tackled without having full competency in the
|
|||
|
areas mentioned below.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
- A reasonable understanding of bitcoin at a high level (see the
|
|||
|
[Required Reading](#ReqReading) section for the original white paper)
|
|||
|
- A reasonable understanding of the Lightning Network at a high level
|
|||
|
- Experience in some type of C-like language
|
|||
|
- An understanding of data structures and their performance implications
|
|||
|
- Familiarity with unit testing
|
|||
|
- Debugging experience
|
|||
|
- Ability to understand not only the area you are making a change in, but also
|
|||
|
the code your change relies on, and the code which relies on your changed code
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Building on top of those core competencies, the recommended skill set largely
|
|||
|
depends on the specific areas you are looking to contribute to. For example,
|
|||
|
if you wish to contribute to the cryptography code, you should have a good
|
|||
|
understanding of the various aspects involved with cryptography such as the
|
|||
|
security and performance implications.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
<a name="ReqReading" />
|
|||
|
### 3. Required Reading
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
- [Effective Go](http://golang.org/doc/effective_go.html) - The entire btcd
|
|||
|
suite follows the guidelines in this document. For your code to be accepted,
|
|||
|
it must follow the guidelines therein.
|
|||
|
- [Original Satoshi Whitepaper](http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CCkQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fbitcoin.org%2Fbitcoin.pdf&ei=os3VUuH8G4SlsASV74GoAg&usg=AFQjCNEipPLigou_1MfB7DQjXCNdlylrBg&sig2=FaHDuT5z36GMWDEnybDJLg&bvm=bv.59378465,d.b2I) - This is the white paper that started it all. Having a solid
|
|||
|
foundation to build on will make the code much more comprehensible.
|
|||
|
- [Lightning Network Whitepaper](https://lightning.network/lightning-network-paper.pdf) - This is the white paper that kicked off the Layer 2 revolution. Having a good graps of the concepts of Lightning will make the core logic within the daemon much more comprehensible: Bitcoin Script, off-chain blockchain protocols, payment channels, bi-directional payment channels, relative and absolute time-locks, commitment state revocations, and Segregated Witness.
|
|||
|
- The original LN was written for a rather narrow audience, the paper may be a bit unapproachable to many. Thanks to the Bitcoin community, there exist many easily accessible suplemental resources which can help one see how all the pieces fit together from double-spend protection all the way up to commitment state transitions and Hash Time Locked Contracts (HTLC's):
|
|||
|
- [Lightning Network Summary](https://lightning.network/lightning-network-summary.pdf)
|
|||
|
- [Understanding the Lightning Network 3-Part series](https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/understanding-the-lightning-network-part-building-a-bidirectional-payment-channel-1464710791)
|
|||
|
- [Deployable Lightning](https://github.com/ElementsProject/lightning/blob/master/doc/deployable-lightning.pdf)
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Note that the core design of the Lightning Network has shifted over time as
|
|||
|
concrete implementation and design has expanded our knowledge beyond the
|
|||
|
original white paper. Therefore, specific information outlined in the resources
|
|||
|
above may be a bit out of date. Many implementers are currently working on an
|
|||
|
initial [Version 1 Specification](https://medium.com/@lightningnetwork/lightning-network-meeting-on-interoperability-and-specifications-ea49e47696a4).
|
|||
|
Once the specification is finalized, it will be the most up-to-date
|
|||
|
comprehensive document explaining the Lightning Network. As a result, it will
|
|||
|
be recommened for new comers to read first in order to get up to speed.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
<a name="DevelopmentPractices" />
|
|||
|
### 4. Development Practices
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Developers are expected to work in their own trees and submit pull requests when
|
|||
|
they feel their feature or bug fix is ready for integration into the master
|
|||
|
branch.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
<a name="ShareEarly" />
|
|||
|
### 4.1 Share Early, Share Often
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
We firmly believe in the share early, share often approach. The basic premise
|
|||
|
of the approach is to announce your plans **before** you start work, and once
|
|||
|
you have started working, craft your changes into a stream of small and easily
|
|||
|
reviewable commits.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
This approach has several benefits:
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
- Announcing your plans to work on a feature **before** you begin work avoids
|
|||
|
duplicate work
|
|||
|
- It permits discussions which can help you achieve your goals in a way that is
|
|||
|
consistent with the existing architecture
|
|||
|
- It minimizes the chances of you spending time and energy on a change that
|
|||
|
might not fit with the consensus of the community or existing architecture and
|
|||
|
potentially be rejected as a result
|
|||
|
- The quicker your changes are merged to master, the less time you will need to
|
|||
|
spend rebasing and otherwise trying to keep up with the main code base
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
<a name="Testing" />
|
|||
|
### 4.2 Testing
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
One of the major design goals of all of lnd's packages and the daemon itself is
|
|||
|
to aim for a high degree of test coverage. This is financial software so bugs
|
|||
|
and regressions in the core logic can cost people real money. For this reason
|
|||
|
every effort must be taken to ensure the code is as accurate and bug-free as
|
|||
|
possible. Thorough testing is a good way to help achieve that goal.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Unless a new feature you submit is completely trivial, it will probably be
|
|||
|
rejected unless it is also accompanied by adequate test coverage for both
|
|||
|
positive and negative conditions. That is to say, the tests must ensure your
|
|||
|
code works correctly when it is fed correct data as well as incorrect data
|
|||
|
(error paths).
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Go provides an excellent test framework that makes writing test code and
|
|||
|
checking coverage statistics straight forward. For more information about the
|
|||
|
test coverage tools, see the [golang cover blog post](http://blog.golang.org/cover).
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
A quick summary of test practices follows:
|
|||
|
- All new code should be accompanied by tests that ensure the code behaves
|
|||
|
correctly when given expected values, and, perhaps even more importantly, that
|
|||
|
it handles errors gracefully
|
|||
|
- When you fix a bug, it should be accompanied by tests which exercise the bug
|
|||
|
to both prove it has been resolved and to prevent future regressions
|
|||
|
- Changes to publicly exported packages such as
|
|||
|
[brontide](https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lnd/tree/master/brontide) should
|
|||
|
be accompanied by unittest excersising the new or changed behavior.
|
|||
|
- Changes to behavior within the daemon's interaction with the P2P protocol,
|
|||
|
or RPC's will need to be accompanied by integration tests which use the
|
|||
|
[`networkHarness`framework](https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lnd/blob/master/networktest.go)
|
|||
|
contained within `lnd`. For example integration tests, see
|
|||
|
[`lnd_test.go`](https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lnd/blob/master/lnd_test.go#L181).
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
<a name="CodeDocumentation" />
|
|||
|
### 4.3 Code Documentation and Commenting
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
- At a minimum every function must be commented with its intended purpose and
|
|||
|
any assumptions that it makes
|
|||
|
- Function comments must always begin with the name of the function per
|
|||
|
[Effective Go](http://golang.org/doc/effective_go.html)
|
|||
|
- Function comments should be complete sentences since they allow a wide
|
|||
|
variety of automated presentations such as [godoc.org](https://godoc.org)
|
|||
|
- The general rule of thumb is to look at it as if you were completely
|
|||
|
unfamiliar with the code and ask yourself, would this give me enough
|
|||
|
information to understand what this function does and how I'd probably want
|
|||
|
to use it?
|
|||
|
- Exported functions should also include detailed information the caller of the
|
|||
|
function will likely need to know and/or understand:<br /><br />
|
|||
|
**WRONG**
|
|||
|
```go
|
|||
|
// generates a revocation key
|
|||
|
func DeriveRevocationPubkey(commitPubKey *btcec.PublicKey,
|
|||
|
revokePreimage []byte) *btcec.PublicKey {
|
|||
|
```
|
|||
|
**RIGHT**
|
|||
|
```go
|
|||
|
// DeriveRevocationPubkey derives the revocation public key given the
|
|||
|
// counter-party's commitment key, and revocation pre-image derived via a
|
|||
|
// pseudo-random-function. In the event that we (for some reason) broadcast a
|
|||
|
// revoked commitment transaction, then if the other party knows the revocation
|
|||
|
// pre-image, then they'll be able to derive the corresponding private key to
|
|||
|
// this private key by exploiting the homomorphism in the elliptic curve group:
|
|||
|
// * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_homomorphism#Homomorphisms_of_abelian_groups
|
|||
|
//
|
|||
|
// The derivation is performed as follows:
|
|||
|
//
|
|||
|
// revokeKey := commitKey + revokePoint
|
|||
|
// := G*k + G*h
|
|||
|
// := G * (k+h)
|
|||
|
//
|
|||
|
// Therefore, once we divulge the revocation pre-image, the remote peer is able to
|
|||
|
// compute the proper private key for the revokeKey by computing:
|
|||
|
// revokePriv := commitPriv + revokePreimge mod N
|
|||
|
//
|
|||
|
// Where N is the order of the sub-group.
|
|||
|
func DeriveRevocationPubkey(commitPubKey *btcec.PublicKey,
|
|||
|
revokePreimage []byte) *btcec.PublicKey {
|
|||
|
```
|
|||
|
- Comments in the body of the code are highly encouraged, but they should
|
|||
|
explain the intention of the code as opposed to just calling out the
|
|||
|
obvious<br /><br />
|
|||
|
**WRONG**
|
|||
|
```Go
|
|||
|
// return err if amt is less than 546
|
|||
|
if amt < 546 {
|
|||
|
return err
|
|||
|
}
|
|||
|
```
|
|||
|
**RIGHT**
|
|||
|
```go
|
|||
|
// Treat transactions with amounts less than the amount which is considered dust
|
|||
|
// as non-standard.
|
|||
|
if amt < 546 {
|
|||
|
return err
|
|||
|
}
|
|||
|
```
|
|||
|
**NOTE:** The above should really use a constant as opposed to a magic number,
|
|||
|
but it was left as a magic number to show how much of a difference a good
|
|||
|
comment can make.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
<a name="ModelGitCommitMessages" />
|
|||
|
### 4.4 Code Documentation and Commenting
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
This project prefers to keep a clean commit history with well-formed commit
|
|||
|
messages. This section illustrates a model commit message and provides a bit
|
|||
|
of background for it. This content was originally created by Tim Pope and made
|
|||
|
available on his website, however that website is no longer active, so it is
|
|||
|
being provided here.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Here’s a model Git commit message:
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
```
|
|||
|
Short (50 chars or less) summary of changes
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
More detailed explanatory text, if necessary. Wrap it to about 72
|
|||
|
characters or so. In some contexts, the first line is treated as the
|
|||
|
subject of an email and the rest of the text as the body. The blank
|
|||
|
line separating the summary from the body is critical (unless you omit
|
|||
|
the body entirely); tools like rebase can get confused if you run the
|
|||
|
two together.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Write your commit message in the present tense: "Fix bug" and not "Fixed
|
|||
|
bug." This convention matches up with commit messages generated by
|
|||
|
commands like git merge and git revert.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Further paragraphs come after blank lines.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
- Bullet points are okay, too
|
|||
|
- Typically a hyphen or asterisk is used for the bullet, preceded by a
|
|||
|
single space, with blank lines in between, but conventions vary here
|
|||
|
- Use a hanging indent
|
|||
|
```
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Here are some of the reasons why wrapping your commit messages to 72 columns is
|
|||
|
a good thing.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
- git log doesn’t do any special special wrapping of the commit messages. With
|
|||
|
the default pager of less -S, this means your paragraphs flow far off the edge
|
|||
|
of the screen, making them difficult to read. On an 80 column terminal, if we
|
|||
|
subtract 4 columns for the indent on the left and 4 more for symmetry on the
|
|||
|
right, we’re left with 72 columns.
|
|||
|
- git format-patch --stdout converts a series of commits to a series of emails,
|
|||
|
using the messages for the message body. Good email netiquette dictates we
|
|||
|
wrap our plain text emails such that there’s room for a few levels of nested
|
|||
|
reply indicators without overflow in an 80 column terminal.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
In addition to the Git commit message structure adhered to within the daemon
|
|||
|
all short-[commit messages are to be prefixed according to the convention
|
|||
|
outlined in the Go project](https://golang.org/doc/contribute.html#change). All
|
|||
|
commits should begin with the sub-system or package primarliy affected by the
|
|||
|
change. In the case of a widespread change, the packages are to be delimited by
|
|||
|
either a '+' or a ','. This prefix seems minor but can be extremly helpful it
|
|||
|
determining the scope of a commit at a glance, or when bug hunting to find a
|
|||
|
commit which introduced a bug or regression.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
<a name="CodeSpacing" />
|
|||
|
### 4.5 Code Spacing
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Blocks of code within lnd should be segmented into logical stanzas of
|
|||
|
operation. Such spacing makes the code easier to follow at a skim, and reduces
|
|||
|
uncessary line noise. Coupled commenting scheme specified above, proper spacing
|
|||
|
allows readers to quickly scan code, extracting semantics quickly. Functions
|
|||
|
should _not_ just be layed out as a bare contigious block of code.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
- **Wrong**
|
|||
|
```go
|
|||
|
witness := make([][]byte, 4)
|
|||
|
witness[0] = nil
|
|||
|
if bytes.Compare(pubA, pubB) == -1 {
|
|||
|
witness[1] = sigB
|
|||
|
witness[2] = sigA
|
|||
|
} else {
|
|||
|
witness[1] = sigA
|
|||
|
witness[2] = sigB
|
|||
|
}
|
|||
|
witness[3] = witnessScript
|
|||
|
return witness
|
|||
|
```
|
|||
|
- **Right**
|
|||
|
```go
|
|||
|
witness := make([][]byte, 4)
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
// When spending a p2wsh multi-sig script, rather than an OP_0, we add
|
|||
|
// a nil stack element to eat the extra pop.
|
|||
|
witness[0] = nil
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
// When initially generating the witnessScript, we sorted the serialized
|
|||
|
// public keys in descending order. So we do a quick comparison in order
|
|||
|
// ensure the signatures appear on the Script Virtual Machine stack in
|
|||
|
// the correct order.
|
|||
|
if bytes.Compare(pubA, pubB) == -1 {
|
|||
|
witness[1] = sigB
|
|||
|
witness[2] = sigA
|
|||
|
} else {
|
|||
|
witness[1] = sigA
|
|||
|
witness[2] = sigB
|
|||
|
}
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
// Finally, add the pre-image as the last witness element.
|
|||
|
witness[3] = witnessScript
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
return witness
|
|||
|
```
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
<a name="CodeApproval" />
|
|||
|
### 5. Code Approval Process
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
This section describes the code approval process that is used for code
|
|||
|
contributions. This is how to get your changes into btcd.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
<a name="CodeReview" />
|
|||
|
### 5.1 Code Review
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
All code which is submitted will need to be reviewed before inclusion into the
|
|||
|
master branch. This process is performed by the project maintainers and usually
|
|||
|
other committers who are interested in the area you are working in as well.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
##### Code Review Timeframe
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The timeframe for a code review will vary greatly depending on factors such as
|
|||
|
the number of other pull requests which need to be reviewed, the size and
|
|||
|
complexity of the contribution, how well you followed the guidelines presented
|
|||
|
on this page, and how easy it is for the reviewers to digest your commits. For
|
|||
|
example, if you make one monolithic commit that makes sweeping changes to things
|
|||
|
in multiple subsystems, it will obviously take much longer to review. You will
|
|||
|
also likely be asked to split the commit into several smaller, and hence more
|
|||
|
manageable, commits.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Keeping the above in mind, most small changes will be reviewed within a few
|
|||
|
days, while large or far reaching changes may take weeks. This is a good reason
|
|||
|
to stick with the [Share Early, Share Often](#ShareOften) development practice
|
|||
|
outlined above.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
##### What is the review looking for?
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The review is mainly ensuring the code follows the [Development Practices](#DevelopmentPractices)
|
|||
|
and [Code Contribution Standards](#Standards). However, there are a few other
|
|||
|
checks which are generally performed as follows:
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
- The code is stable and has no stability or security concerns
|
|||
|
- The code is properly using existing APIs and generally fits well into the
|
|||
|
overall architecture
|
|||
|
- The change is not something which is deemed inappropriate by community
|
|||
|
consensus
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
<a name="CodeRework" />
|
|||
|
### 5.2 Rework Code (if needed)
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
After the code review, the change will be accepted immediately if no issues are
|
|||
|
found. If there are any concerns or questions, you will be provided with
|
|||
|
feedback along with the next steps needed to get your contribution merged with
|
|||
|
master. In certain cases the code reviewer(s) or interested committers may help
|
|||
|
you rework the code, but generally you will simply be given feedback for you to
|
|||
|
make the necessary changes.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
This process will continue until the code is finally accepted.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
<a name="CodeAcceptance" />
|
|||
|
### 5.3 Acceptance
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Once your code is accepted, it will be integrated with the master branch.
|
|||
|
Typically it will be rebased and fast-forward merged to master as we prefer to
|
|||
|
keep a clean commit history over a tangled weave of merge commits. However,
|
|||
|
regardless of the specific merge method used, the code will be integrated with
|
|||
|
the master branch and the pull request will be closed.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Rejoice as you will now be listed as a [contributor](https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lnd/graphs/contributors)!
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
<a name="Standards" />
|
|||
|
### 6. Contribution Standards
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
<a name="Checklist" />
|
|||
|
### 6.1. Contribution Checklist
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
- [ ] All changes are Go version 1.5 compliant
|
|||
|
- [ ] The code being submitted is commented according to the
|
|||
|
[Code Documentation and Commenting](#CodeDocumentation) section
|
|||
|
- [ ] For new code: Code is accompanied by tests which exercise both
|
|||
|
the positive and negative (error paths) conditions (if applicable)
|
|||
|
- [ ] For bug fixes: Code is accompanied by new tests which trigger
|
|||
|
the bug being fixed to prevent regressions
|
|||
|
- [ ] Any new logging statements use an appropriate subsystem and
|
|||
|
logging level
|
|||
|
- [ ] Code has been formatted with `go fmt`
|
|||
|
- [ ] Running `go test` does not fail any tests
|
|||
|
- [ ] Running `go vet` does not report any issues
|
|||
|
- [ ] Running [golint](https://github.com/golang/lint) does not
|
|||
|
report any **new** issues that did not already exist
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
<a name="Licensing" />
|
|||
|
### 6.2. Licensing of Contributions
|
|||
|
****
|
|||
|
All contributions must be licensed with the
|
|||
|
[MIT license](https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lnd/blob/master/LICENSE). This is
|
|||
|
the same license as all of the code found within lnd.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
## Aknolwedgements
|
|||
|
This document was heavily inspired by a [similar document outlining the code
|
|||
|
contribution](https://github.com/btcsuite/btcd/blob/master/docs/code_contribution_guidelines.md)
|
|||
|
guidelines for btcd.
|