ceph/CodingStyle

171 lines
4.2 KiB
Plaintext
Raw Permalink Normal View History

2011-07-11 16:57:22 +00:00
Ceph Coding style
-----------------
Coding style is most important for new code and (to a lesser extent)
revised code. It is not worth the churn to simply reformat old code.
C code
------
For C code, we conform by the Linux kernel coding standards:
https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst
2011-07-11 16:57:22 +00:00
C++ code
--------
For C++ code, things are a bit more complex. As a baseline, we use Google's
coding guide:
https://google.github.io/styleguide/cppguide.html
2011-07-11 16:57:22 +00:00
As an addendum to the above, we add the following guidelines, organized
by section.
* Naming > Type Names:
Google uses CamelCaps for all type names. We use two naming schemes:
- for naked structs (simple data containers), lower case with _t.
Yes, _t also means typedef. It's perhaps not ideal.
struct my_type_t {
int a = 0, b = 0;
void encode(...) ...
...
2011-07-11 16:57:22 +00:00
};
- for full-blown classes, CamelCaps, private: section, accessors,
probably not copyable, etc.
2011-07-11 16:57:22 +00:00
* Naming > Variable Names:
Google uses _ suffix for class members. That's ugly. We'll use
a m_ prefix, like so, or none at all.
2011-07-11 16:57:22 +00:00
class Foo {
public:
int get_foo() const { return m_foo; }
void set_foo(int foo) { m_foo = foo; }
private:
int m_foo;
};
2011-07-11 16:57:22 +00:00
* Naming > Constant Names:
2011-07-13 18:25:22 +00:00
Google uses kSomeThing for constants. We prefer SOME_THING.
2011-07-11 16:57:22 +00:00
* Naming > Function Names:
Google uses CamelCaps. We use_function_names_with_underscores().
Accessors are the same, {get,set}_field().
* Naming > Enumerator Names:
Name them like constants, as above (SOME_THING).
* Comments > File Comments:
Don't sweat it, unless the license varies from that of the project
(LGPL2.1 or LGPL3.0) or the code origin isn't reflected by the git history.
2011-07-11 16:57:22 +00:00
* Formatting > Tabs:
Indent width is two spaces. When runs of 8 spaces can be compressed
to a single tab character, do so. The standard Emacs/Vim settings
header is:
// -*- mode:C++; tab-width:8; c-basic-offset:2; indent-tabs-mode:t -*-
// vim: ts=8 sw=2 smarttab ft=cpp
2011-07-11 16:57:22 +00:00
* Formatting > Conditionals:
- No spaces inside conditionals please, e.g.
if (foo) { // okay
2011-07-13 18:25:22 +00:00
if ( foo ) { // no
2011-07-11 16:57:22 +00:00
- Always use newline following if, and use braces:
if (foo) {
bar; // like this, even for a one-liner
}
2011-07-13 18:25:22 +00:00
if (foo)
bar; // no, usually harder to parse visually
if (foo) bar; // no
if (foo) { bar; } // definitely no
2011-07-11 16:57:22 +00:00
* Header Files -> The `#define` Guard:
2011-07-11 16:57:22 +00:00
`#pragma once` is allowed for simplicity at the expense of
portability since `#pragma once` is widely supported and is known
to work on GCC and Clang.
2011-07-11 16:57:22 +00:00
CodingStyle: allow C++ forward declarations The Google coding guide opposes to forward declarations, but I disagree with that opinion. In my opinion, forward declarations are useful. Ceph build times are miserable due to header dependency bloat and template bloat, both of which can be reduced using forward declarations. All cons listed in https://google.github.io/styleguide/cppguide.html > Forward declarations can hide a dependency, allowing user code to > skip necessary recompilation when headers change. That is a pro, not a con. Skipping (unnecessary) recompilation is a good thing, it's the goal of forward declarations. > A forward declaration as opposed to an #include statement makes it > difficult for automatic tooling to discover the module defining the > symbol. That certainly depends on the tools one uses, but I cannot imagine today's IDEs are limited to one compilation unit. > A forward declaration may be broken by subsequent changes to the > library. True, and that will lead to a compiler error. > Forward declarations of functions and templates can prevent the > header owners from making otherwise-compatible changes to their > APIs, such as widening a parameter type, adding a template parameter > with a default value, or migrating to a new namespace. Forward declarations do not prevent any of that. But if you change the "real" declaration, all incompatible forward declarations will cause a compiler error. > Forward declaring symbols from namespace std:: yields undefined > behavior. Sad, but true. But that is not an argument against forward declarations for Ceph's own types. > It can be difficult to determine whether a forward declaration or a > full #include is needed. If it compiles without the `#include`, then the forward declaration is fine. (Or the primary header happened to be already included by somebody else.) > Replacing an #include with a forward declaration can silently change > the meaning of code: [...] If the #include was replaced with forward > decls for B and D, test() would call f(void*). True, but this is a contrived example, and is bad coding style because it is error prone. Casts to `void*` can and should be avoided. There are rare examples where such casts are necessary (boundary to C APIs), and then it's very unusual to pass derived incomplete types. > Forward declaring multiple symbols from a header can be more verbose > than simply #includeing the header. True, but that misses the point of forward declarations. > Structuring code to enable forward declarations (e.g., using pointer > members instead of object members) can make the code slower and more > complex. True, but that is not a property of forward declarations. I don't suggest doing such a thing. Signed-off-by: Max Kellermann <max.kellermann@ionos.com>
2024-10-15 15:52:45 +00:00
* Header Files -> Forward declarations:
Forward declarations of structs, unions, classes and enums can be
used to reduce header dependencies. This speeds up compile times
because the compiler has to process less code.
2011-07-11 16:57:22 +00:00
The following guidelines have not been followed in the legacy code,
but are worth mentioning and should be followed strictly for new code:
* Header Files > Function Parameter Ordering:
Inputs, then outputs.
* Classes > Explicit Constructors:
You should normally mark constructors explicit to avoid getting silent
type conversions.
* Classes > Copy Constructors:
- Use defaults for basic struct-style data objects.
- Most other classes should DISALLOW_COPY_AND_ASSIGN.
- In rare cases we can define a proper copy constructor and operator=.
* Other C++ Features > Reference Arguments:
Only use const references. Use pointers for output arguments.
* Other C++ Features > Avoid Default Arguments:
They obscure the interface.
Python code
-----------
For new python code, PEP-8 should be observed:
https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0008/
Existing code can be refactored to adhere to PEP-8, and cleanups are welcome.
JavaScript / TypeScript
-----------------------
For Angular code, we follow the official Angular style guide:
https://angular.io/guide/styleguide
To check whether your code is conformant with the style guide, we use a
combination of ESLint, Codelyzer and Prettier:
https://eslint.org/
http://codelyzer.com/
https://prettier.io/