Summer of Code
This year, we (the Review Board project) was given the opportunity to participate in Google’s Summer of Code. We’ve received some great student proposals so far, and I think we’ll see exciting work done on Review Board this summer.
The deadline for Summer of Code is coming up fast (April 3rd, 19:00 UTC). If you’re interested in working on Review Board and haven’t yet applied, it’s not too late, but you’ll want to hurry. Skim through our ideas page and, if you find something interesting or have a great idea not listed here, then apply and tell us your plans. I can say we’ve received several proposals so far for the installer and admin UI, so unless you feel strongly about either of those, you’ll increase your chances with other proposals.
We’re also offering free Review Board hosting for open source projects participating in Summer of Code. If you’re a mentoring organization and would like to give Review Board a try for reviewing and managing student code, go ahead and contact us and we’ll get you set up.
We’re finally nearing 1.0. We recently put out our 1.0 beta 2 release and are now in a feature freeze. We’re working to get some bug, performance and usability fixes in for beta 3, which I’m shooting for in a few weeks. Then we’ll branch for 1.0, put out a Release Candidate or two, and then finally release 1.0!
There’s a lot of really cool features planned after 1.0, namely extensions and policy customization.
Our bug tracker is filled with feature requests for all kinds of things, ranging from bug tracker integration, instant messaging, a method for offering bribes for code reviews, and so on. We clearly can’t put all the requested features in the codebase, so we’ve decided instead to add support for third-party extensions. Coming soon, developers will be able to write extensions to Review Board in the form of Python modules to extend or alter the functionality of Review Board. The extension framework will allow them to do the following:
- Access the database using the existing Review Board database models.
- Add new database models for storing data.
- Listen for signals (new review request published, review request submitted, etc.) and act on them.
- Add custom URLs.
- Replace existing URLs, for advanced capabilities such as replacing the diff viewer.
- Add new API handlers.
- Add “action” links to existing review requests and reviews.
- Add columns and sidebar entries to the dashboard.
- Add pages to the administration UI.
- Communicate with other extensions.
- Provide a settings page, which stores data in Review Board-provided models (we even auto-generate the settings page for the extension by default).
- And more!
A lot of this already exists in a private development branch, and it will be one of our primary focuses as soon as 1.0 goes out.
In time, we’ll add a new section to the Review Board website where developers can list their extensions for download and for sale. Administrators will be able to browse and search for extensions directly from the administration UI and install them without having to even open a terminal (in most cases).
We’re hoping this will solve a lot of in-house integration issues. For example, many companies have custom sandbox architectures, bug trackers, and statistics software which they’ll now be able to tie in with Review Board.
We’ve found that a lot of companies have very specific ways they want to handle policy and access restrictions. For example, many companies want to limit who can see certain parts of a repository (and therefore certain diffs), or want to allow anybody to create review groups, or want to disallow people from joining review groups. Some also want to dictate what constitutes approval for submitting a change.
We’re looking into the various requests and attempting to come up with a policy model that is flexible enough to handle these needs. One of the ideas is to provide some basic level of access control on a per-repository, per-path, and per-group basis. We’d then piggy-back on the extension framework to allow for more specific policy control. The advantage is that developers could write their own policy rules that interface with some part of their company’s infrastructure.
If people have any input on this, we’d love to hear it.
I was curious whether extensions would be able to define new routes. That’s great news! So we can come up with extensions to define handlers for webhook POSTs as well as the one for sending them.
Best of luck to you guys. I wish I could help, but I fear I am quite short of your skills!