← Back
Editing: submitting-patches.rst
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 formatting it with ``ruff format`` and running ``ruff`` against it. If you've installed the development requirements this will automatically use our configuration. You can also run the ``nox`` job with ``nox -e flake``. `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. 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: bytes) -> bool: # ... return is_valid # Good! def verify(sig: bytes) -> None: # ... 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. 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 you can run ``nox -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/learn/code-review/best-practices-for-peer-code-review/ .. _`our mailing list`: https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/cryptography-dev
Save File
Cancel