| Submitting patches |
| ================== |
| |
| * Always make a new branch for your work. |
| * Patches should be small to facilitate easier review. `Studies have shown`_ |
| that review quality falls off as patch size grows. Sometimes this will result |
| in many small PRs to land a single large feature. |
| * Larger changes should be discussed on `our mailing list`_ before submission. |
| * New features and significant bug fixes should be documented in the |
| :doc:`/changelog`. |
| * You must have legal permission to distribute any code you contribute to |
| ``cryptography``, and it must be available under both the BSD and Apache |
| Software License Version 2.0 licenses. |
| |
| If you believe you've identified a security issue in ``cryptography``, please |
| follow the directions on the :doc:`security page </security>`. |
| |
| Code |
| ---- |
| |
| When in doubt, refer to :pep:`8` for Python code. You can check if your code |
| meets our automated requirements by running ``flake8`` against it. If you've |
| installed the development requirements this will automatically use our |
| configuration. You can also run the ``tox`` job with ``tox -e pep8``. |
| |
| `Write comments as complete sentences.`_ |
| |
| Class names which contains acronyms or initialisms should always be |
| capitalized. A class should be named ``HTTPClient``, not ``HttpClient``. |
| |
| Every code file must start with the boilerplate licensing notice: |
| |
| .. code-block:: python |
| |
| # This file is dual licensed under the terms of the Apache License, Version |
| # 2.0, and the BSD License. See the LICENSE file in the root of this repository |
| # for complete details. |
| |
| Additionally, every Python code file must contain |
| |
| .. code-block:: python |
| |
| from __future__ import absolute_import, division, print_function |
| |
| API considerations |
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ |
| |
| Most projects' APIs are designed with a philosophy of "make easy things easy, |
| and make hard things possible". One of the perils of writing cryptographic code |
| is that secure code looks just like insecure code, and its results are almost |
| always indistinguishable. As a result, ``cryptography`` has, as a design |
| philosophy: "make it hard to do insecure things". Here are a few strategies for |
| API design that should be both followed, and should inspire other API choices: |
| |
| If it is necessary to compare a user provided value with a computed value (for |
| example, verifying a signature), there should be an API provided that performs |
| the verification in a secure way (for example, using a constant time |
| comparison), rather than requiring the user to perform the comparison |
| themselves. |
| |
| If it is incorrect to ignore the result of a method, it should raise an |
| exception, and not return a boolean ``True``/``False`` flag. For example, a |
| method to verify a signature should raise ``InvalidSignature``, and not return |
| whether the signature was valid. |
| |
| .. code-block:: python |
| |
| # This is bad. |
| def verify(sig): |
| # ... |
| return is_valid |
| |
| # Good! |
| def verify(sig): |
| # ... |
| if not is_valid: |
| raise InvalidSignature |
| |
| Every recipe should include a version or algorithmic marker of some sort in its |
| output in order to allow transparent upgrading of the algorithms in use, as |
| the algorithms or parameters needed to achieve a given security margin evolve. |
| |
| APIs at the :doc:`/hazmat/primitives/index` layer should always take an |
| explicit backend, APIs at the recipes layer should automatically use the |
| :func:`~cryptography.hazmat.backends.default_backend`, but optionally allow |
| specifying a different backend. |
| |
| C bindings |
| ~~~~~~~~~~ |
| |
| More information on C bindings can be found in :doc:`the dedicated |
| section of the documentation <c-bindings>`. |
| |
| Tests |
| ----- |
| |
| All code changes must be accompanied by unit tests with 100% code coverage (as |
| measured by the combined metrics across our build matrix). |
| |
| When implementing a new primitive or recipe ``cryptography`` requires that you |
| provide a set of test vectors. See :doc:`/development/test-vectors` for more |
| details. |
| |
| Documentation |
| ------------- |
| |
| All features should be documented with prose in the ``docs`` section. To ensure |
| it builds and passes `doc8`_ style checks you can run ``tox -e docs``. |
| |
| Because of the inherent challenges in implementing correct cryptographic |
| systems, we want to make our documentation point people in the right directions |
| as much as possible. To that end: |
| |
| * When documenting a generic interface, use a strong algorithm in examples. |
| (e.g. when showing a hashing example, don't use |
| :class:`~cryptography.hazmat.primitives.hashes.MD5`) |
| * When giving prescriptive advice, always provide references and supporting |
| material. |
| * When there is real disagreement between cryptographic experts, represent both |
| sides of the argument and describe the trade-offs clearly. |
| |
| When documenting a new module in the ``hazmat`` package, its documentation |
| should begin with the "Hazardous Materials" warning: |
| |
| .. code-block:: rest |
| |
| .. hazmat:: |
| |
| Always prefer terminology that is most broadly accepted. For example: |
| |
| * When referring to class instances use "an instance of ``Foo``" |
| instead of "a ``Foo`` provider". |
| |
| When referring to a hypothetical individual (such as "a person receiving an |
| encrypted message") use gender neutral pronouns (they/them/their). |
| |
| Docstrings are typically only used when writing abstract classes, but should |
| be written like this if required: |
| |
| .. code-block:: python |
| |
| def some_function(some_arg): |
| """ |
| Does some things. |
| |
| :param some_arg: Some argument. |
| """ |
| |
| So, specifically: |
| |
| * Always use three double quotes. |
| * Put the three double quotes on their own line. |
| * No blank line at the end. |
| * Use Sphinx parameter/attribute documentation `syntax`_. |
| |
| |
| .. _`Write comments as complete sentences.`: https://nedbatchelder.com/blog/201401/comments_should_be_sentences.html |
| .. _`syntax`: https://www.sphinx-doc.org/en/master/usage/restructuredtext/domains.html#info-field-lists |
| .. _`Studies have shown`: https://smartbear.com/SmartBear/media/pdfs/11_Best_Practices_for_Peer_Code_Review.pdf |
| .. _`our mailing list`: https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/cryptography-dev |
| .. _`doc8`: https://github.com/openstack/doc8 |