Differences between revisions 16 and 17
Revision 16 as of 2016-05-04 22:14:40
Size: 12124
Editor: nthiery
Comment:
Revision 17 as of 2016-05-06 22:09:47
Size: 12294
Editor: slelievre
Comment: Fix typos + polish
Deletions are marked like this. Additions are marked like this.
Line 6: Line 6:
One core aim of Sage is to foster code sharing, and encourage groups One core aim of Sage is to foster code sharing, and to encourage groups
Line 17: Line 17:
The goal of this document is to discuss the different workflow that
have been tried, their pros and cons, to share best practices and
brainstorm about what support and recommendations Sage could provide
The goal of this document is to discuss the different workflows that
have been tried with their pros and cons, to share best practices and
to brainstorm about what support and recommendations Sage could provide
Line 21: Line 21:
developers manual (though this can be of interest for other people developer's manual (though this can be of interest for other people
Line 31: Line 31:
Of course the milleage will vary from project to project, but the objectives of a development workflow can typically be to: Of course the milleage will vary from project to project, but the objectives
of a development workflow can typically be to:
Line 36: Line 37:
2. Support *rapid dissemination of experimental features* 2. Support *rapid dissemination of experimental features*.
Line 50: Line 51:
      discover that a given feature is being implemented somewhere.

3. Foster high quality code by promoting documentation, tests, code reviews
      discover that a given feature is being implemented somewhere

3. Foster high quality code by promoting documentation, tests, code reviews.
Line 64: Line 65:
6. Minimize *maintenance* overhead, and in particular code rotting 6. Minimize *maintenance* overhead, and in particular code rotting.
Line 67: Line 68:
    (simplifying things out: between Sage's model and GAP's model)     (simplifying things out: between Sage's model and GAP's model).
Line 72: Line 73:
    features can be found at their expected place) and enable     features can be found at their expected location) and enable
Line 80: Line 81:
    would be a pain)     would be a pain).
Line 101: Line 102:
- Promotes early integration of code and 3.
- 8. is straightforward

Cons:

- Limited support for 2.
- Promotes early integration of code and objective 3
- Makes objective 8 straightforward

Cons:

- Limited support for objective 2
Line 109: Line 110:
  care of backward compatibility. No good for 4.   care of backward compatibility. No good for objective 4
Line 115: Line 116:
- `SageManifolds <http://sagemanifolds.obspm.fr/>`_, cf. the metaticket `#18528 <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/18528>`_ - `SageManifolds <http://sagemanifolds.obspm.fr/>`_, cf. the metaticket
`#18528 <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/18528>`_
Line 120: Line 122:
In this workflow, experimental feature or feature sets are implemented as branches on the Sage sources.

Pros:

- 8. is straightforward
In this workflow, experimental feature or feature sets are implemented as
branches on the Sage sources.

Pros:

- Makes objective 8 straightforward
Line 131: Line 134:
  syntactical conflicts with changes in Sage (though automatic merges help).
- 2. requires basic git knowledge from end-users.
- Lack of modularity for 2.: due to potential conflicts, it's not easy
  syntactical conflicts with changes in Sage (though automatic merges help)
- Objective 2 requires basic git knowledge from end-users
- Lack of modularity for objective 2: due to potential conflicts, it's not easy
Line 138: Line 141:
  orthogonal to the granularity of features).   orthogonal to the granularity of features)
Line 141: Line 144:
  build feature sets out of features, but this did not work well.
- Because of the above, this workflow does not work well for 4.
- Introduces a bias toward the all-in-one development model.
  build feature sets out of features, but this did not work well
- Because of the above, this workflow does not work well for objective 4
- Introduces a bias toward the all-in-one development model
Line 158: Line 161:
- Relatively good for 1. (except for 6.)
- Relatively good for 2. (thanks to "sage -combinat install"), except
- Relatively good for objective 1 (except for objective 6)
- Relatively good for objective 2 (thanks to "sage -combinat install"), except
Line 161: Line 164:
- 8. is straightforward - Objective 8 is straightforward
Line 166: Line 169:
- Really bad at 6: Horrible maintenance overhead due to syntactic conflicts and lack of automatic merging - Really bad at objective 6: Horrible maintenance overhead due to syntactic conflicts
 
and lack of automatic merging
Line 227: Line 231:
- Good for 1., 2., 4., - Good for objectives 1, 2, 4
Line 265: Line 269:
- 8. is straightforward - Objective 8 is straightforward
Line 269: Line 273:
- The integration of mature code into Sage helps for 3 and for the - The integration of mature code into Sage helps for objective 3 and for the

On development workflows for sharing (experimental) code

One core aim of Sage is to foster code sharing, and to encourage groups of researchers, teachers, and other users to get together to develop new features they need either on top of or within Sage, and share them.

Over the years, many development workflows have been experimented by various groups of people to improve Sage in certain areas, like Sage-Combinat for (algebraic) combinatorics, Sage-Words for combinatorics on words, SageManifolds for differential geometry, purple-sage for number theory, ...

The goal of this document is to discuss the different workflows that have been tried with their pros and cons, to share best practices and to brainstorm about what support and recommendations Sage could provide for various use cases. Eventually, this could become a section of the developer's manual (though this can be of interest for other people wanting to start sharing code without necessarily contributing to Sage).

At this point this is a collection of notes by N. Thiéry; please hack in and contribute your own vision!

Objectives of a development workflow

Of course the milleage will vary from project to project, but the objectives of a development workflow can typically be to:

  1. Support fast paced development within a group of users working on the same topic, or needing similar features.
  2. Support rapid dissemination of experimental features.

    The goal is simultaneously to support users, and to get early feedback on the code.

    Typical needs:

    • Using, for a given calculation, experimental features from different areas, developped by different groups of people
    • Getting the latest version of a feature, without having to upgrade all of Sage (e.g. just before delivering a talk!!!)
    • Feature discovery: increasing the chances for someone to discover that a given feature is being implemented somewhere
  3. Foster high quality code by promoting documentation, tests, code reviews.
  4. Foster intrinsic high quality code by providing an ecosystem where (experimental) code can live, compete with other implementations, mature and be selected or die, all at a fine granularity.
  5. Strike a balance between centralized and decentralized.

    In particular mitigate the risks of code-bloat of the Sage library versus the risks of death of code lying out somewhere on the web.

  6. Minimize maintenance overhead, and in particular code rotting.
  7. Remain flexible between the all-in-one versus packages development models (simplifying things out: between Sage's model and GAP's model).
  8. Promote extending existing Sage classes and modules with additional features.

    This eases dynamic feature discovery by users (once installed, features can be found at their expected location) and enable transparent migration of code inside the Sage library if and when desired (no need to change the code itself, nor code using it). This also promotes coherent coding standards.

    Note: subclassing is not always an option to extend a class, e.g. when a feature is to be added to an abstract base class of many concrete classes (subclassing each and every concrete class would be a pain).

    See also:

Existing workflows

Direct integration into Sage

In this workflow, each feature is shared by integrating it directly into Sage.

Pros:

  • Simplicity for the user: all stable features are directly available in Sage
  • Simplicity for Sage developers: no additional workflow to learn
  • No need to worry about release, distribution, test infrastructure, ...
  • Promotes early integration of code and objective 3
  • Makes objective 8 straightforward

Cons:

  • Limited support for objective 2
  • Slows down the development: once a feature is in Sage, any change needs to be reviewed, refactoring of the public API requires taking care of backward compatibility. No good for objective 4
  • Getting the latest feature forces updating to the latest version of Sage
  • Introduces a bias toward code bloat (in doubt, features tend to be added to Sage)

Examples:

System Message: WARNING/2 (<string>, line 116)

Bullet list ends without a blank line; unexpected unindent.

#18528

Experimental feature branches

In this workflow, experimental feature or feature sets are implemented as branches on the Sage sources.

Pros:

  • Makes objective 8 straightforward
  • Encourages integration into Sage
  • Development history is automatically kept upon integration into Sage

Cons:

  • Branch needs to be regularly updated to prevent code rotting due to syntactical conflicts with changes in Sage (though automatic merges help)
  • Objective 2 requires basic git knowledge from end-users
  • Lack of modularity for objective 2: due to potential conflicts, it's not easy to combine features from several branches; upgrading to the latest version of a branch often forces a change of version of Sage
  • Cherry picking certain mature features for integration in Sage is somewhat cumbersome (the granularity of branches and commits is orthogonal to the granularity of features)
  • It's hard to strike the right granularity in terms of feature / feature set. We tried dependency tracking among branches as a way to build feature sets out of features, but this did not work well
  • Because of the above, this workflow does not work well for objective 4
  • Introduces a bias toward the all-in-one development model

Patch queue as used by Sage-Combinat between 2009 and 2013

See also those old design notes about the Sage-Combinat workflow.

TODO: description

This section is just for reference: there used to be a strong rationale for this workflow with the former Sage development workflow and a given context. But not any more.

Pros:

  • Relatively good for objective 1 (except for objective 6)
  • Relatively good for objective 2 (thanks to "sage -combinat install"), except for modularity and requiring some Sage recompilation
  • Objective 8 is straightforward

Cons:

  • Complexity of working at the meta level (version control on the patches)
  • Really bad at objective 6: Horrible maintenance overhead due to syntactic conflicts and lack of automatic merging
  • Introduces a strong bias toward code death, or at least non integration into Sage
  • Monolithic: one could not use several patch queues at once, so this did not support overlaping groups of people working on different topics; this introduced a non-natural barrier between Sage-Combinat and the rest of the world, and prevented rapid reconfiguration of projects around topics and groups of developers

Standalone (pip) packages

Here the idea is to implement feature sets as independent Python packages on top of Sage. Converting a bunch of Python files into such a package to make it easy to install is straightforward.

Examples:

NON-Examples:

  • SageManifolds

    The install script for this does all kinds of copying files directly into the sage install, using sed to modify parts of the sage library, etc. It's terrifying. -- William.

    True but that's only a provisory thing for an easy install by a newbie, until the process of full integration of SageManifolds in Sage, started at #18528, is finished. For a developer, the recommended installation process is via git, not via the above script. Actually, we started SageManifolds as a (new-style) spkg and it was distributed as such until version 0.4. Then, in order to ease the review process, we split it in many tickets (listed at #18528) and devise the above script just for end users not familiar with git and make. Really the development workflow of SageManifolds pertains to the category ''Direct integration into Sage'' above, hence it is a Non-Example here -- Eric.

    Or maybe to the category "standalone package with an integration mission below". By the way, the usage of scripts could potentially be replaced by the monkey patching approach described below, though I'd need to check the exact use cases. Let's discuss this at some point! -- Nicolas

  • CHA "It is recommended to use the more recent implementation from the branch attached to this ticket rather than this library."; I think this is just some code to copy into the sage library or run directly, with no package support at all.

Pros:

  • Good for objectives 1, 2, 4

Cons:

  • Handling of compatibility with various versions of the dependencies (in particular Sage)
  • Risk of code rotting (as Sage evolves over time) or death (if it's not maintained)
  • Requires coordination with Sage and related packages to not step on each other

Standalone (pip) packages with an integration mission

This is a variant on the previous development workflow, with an explicit focus on easing (or even promoting) the integration of mature code into Sage.

Specifics:

  • Layout the code as in the Sage library, with top module called e.g. sage-blah instead of sage. For example, to add a method to the Sage class Partition, one would put it in an otherwise empty class sage-blah.combinat.partition.Partition.

  • Use recursive monkey patching (TODO: make a pip package for this, and add a link here) to insert all the code dynamically in the Sage library.

    The effect is to patch the Sage library, as with branches or patch queues; however this is done semantically at the granularity of methods rather than syntactically at the granularity of lines in the source code.

Examples:

Pros:

  • Same as above
  • Objective 8 is straightforward
  • Lighter maintenance overhead compared to branches or patch queues: one only needs to take care of semantic conflicts, not syntactic ones.
  • The integration of mature code into Sage helps for objective 3 and for the maintenance as well: keeping the library as a "small layer" over Sage reduces the risks of irreversibly drifting away, and reduces the amount of updating.
  • Depending on how strongly one pushes toward the integration of mature code, one can flexibly interpolate between the all-in-one model and the package model

Cons:

  • The concept has not yet been really battlefield tested!
  • Moving code into the Sage library is done by copy pasting. This makes for a clean diff showing just the addition of the new methods, but means that one looses the history and author tracking (that's not that different from history squashing as used by many projects)

CodeSharingWorkflow (last edited 2023-02-23 21:49:01 by mkoeppe)