Pull Requests
Pull Requests are the primary mechanism we use to write software. GitHub has some great documentation on using the Pull Request feature.
Fork
In order to contribute to Bitwarden you will need to fork the relevant repository. For details on how to do this see this help article from GitHub. After forking the repository you will need to clone it locally.
# Example for the clients repositorygit clone git@github.com:username/clients.gitIt’s also useful to add a upstream remote pointing to the official Bitwarden repository.
# Example for the clients repository, from the repository directorygit remote add upstream https://github.com/bitwarden/clients.gitThis will allow you to pull in upstream changes easily by running.
# Example for the clients repository, from the repository directorygit fetch upstreamBranch
Each new feature or bug fix should be developed on a separate branch. Branches allow you to work on
multiple features concurrently. In most cases you should branch from main. However, if you are
working with other contributors we typically branch off a long-lived feature branch. Long-lived
feature branches allow us to break up a single feature into multiple PRs, which can be reviewed
individually but tested and released together.
As a community contributor you can use the following command to branch directly from the upstream
main branch.
git checkout -b feature/exampleAs a Bitwarden contributor you should branch of origin/main, this ensures that the branch is
always based of the latest upstream main even if the local main is out of date.
git checkout -b <team>/<issue-number>/<brief-description> -t origin/mainOur branching strategy is described in detail here.
Commit
We recommend grouping related changes together into a single commit. This can make it easier for reviewers to understand and assess the changes that are being proposed, while also giving the contributor checkpoints to revert to if something should go wrong.
We do not have a standard for how to structure commit messages (e.g. semantic commit messages). We
encourage that commit messages should be within the 50-character limit so that git log can be used
easily. If a commit message would take more than 50 characters it is best to break it up into
smaller atomic changes for readability and malleability of the git history (reversion,
cherry-picking, etc.).
More advanced contributors might find it useful to Rewrite History. This allows a contributor to revise their local history before pushing to the remote repository. A common use case is squashing multiple half-working commits.
Creating a pull request
The Bitwarden repositories have a Pull Request template which should be followed. This will ensure
the PR review goes smoothly since it will provide context to the reviewer.
Tagging reviewers
We use CODEOWNERS in each repository to assign the reviewing teams based on the files in the PR.
These reviews are required for the changes to be merged to master.
You can tag additional teams or individuals for review as you see fit, including @dept-design for
any design changes.
Opening the PR for review
As its name implies, marking a PR as “Ready for Review” indicates that you are ready for all
assigned teams to review it. If the changes are still in progress, leave the PR in Draft status.
Doing this ensures that reviewers can act on the “Ready for Review” as their signal to begin the
review process without further notification.
You should receive a review or at least first contact from a reviewer from each assigned team within two business days of marking the PR as Ready for Review.
Follow-up notification
If there is no response to a request for review for two business days, the author should reach out to the team(s) — or to individual engineers if assigned — via Slack to follow up.
This should wait for two business days to allow the default process to take place and not overwhelm the team with notifications on multiple platforms.
Once a Community PR has been created, a Bitwarden developer will perform a code review. While we try to this in a reasonable time frame, please understand that we have internal roadmaps and priorities that may delay this process.
Addressing feedback
It is likely that you will receive some feedback on your PR. You should see this as a positive thing — it signifies a healthy and thorough review process and an organizational commitment to code quality. You may receive comments or a request for changes. You are encouraged to engage in conversation on the PR to discuss a solution, but if any strong conflicting opinions arise it is often best to move the conversation to a synchronous format to avoid any misunderstanding.
When any necessary changes have been made, you should address the comments or request for changes by responding in the PR conversation thread. You are not responsible for resolving the conversation — that is the prerogative of the reviewer, to ensure that they agree that the question or concern has been addressed.
When you are ready for a reviewer to revisit your changes, you should request a re-review. This will notify the reviewer and ensure a prompt response.