|
|
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,50 @@
|
|
|
|
|
# MSC Checklist
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This document contains a list of final checks to perform on an MSC before it
|
|
|
|
|
is accepted. The purpose is to prevent small clarifications needing to be
|
|
|
|
|
made to the MSC after it has already been accepted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Spec Core Team (SCT) members, please ensure that all of the following checks
|
|
|
|
|
pass before accepting a given Matrix Spec Change (MSC).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MSC authors, feel free to ask in a thread on your PR or in the
|
|
|
|
|
[#matrix-spec:matrix.org](https://matrix.to/#/#matrix-spec:matrix.org) room for
|
|
|
|
|
clarification of any of these points.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- [ ] Are [appropriate
|
|
|
|
|
implementation(s)](https://spec.matrix.org/proposals/#implementing-a-proposal)
|
|
|
|
|
specified in the MSC’s PR description?
|
|
|
|
|
- [ ] Are all MSCs that this MSC depends on already accepted?
|
|
|
|
|
- [ ] For each new endpoint that is introduced:
|
|
|
|
|
- [ ] Have authentication requirements been specified?
|
|
|
|
|
- [ ] Have rate-limiting requirements been specified?
|
|
|
|
|
- [ ] Have guest access requirements been specified?
|
|
|
|
|
- [ ] Are error responses specified?
|
|
|
|
|
- [ ] Does each error case have a specified `errcode` (e.g. `M_FORBIDDEN`) and HTTP status code?
|
|
|
|
|
- [ ] If a new `errcode` is introduced, is it clear that it is new?
|
|
|
|
|
- [ ] Will the MSC require a new room version, and if so, has that been made clear?
|
|
|
|
|
- [ ] Is the reason for a new room version clearly stated? For example,
|
|
|
|
|
modifying the set of redacted fields changes how event IDs are calculated,
|
|
|
|
|
thus requiring a new room version.
|
|
|
|
|
- [ ] Are backwards-compatibility concerns appropriately addressed?
|
|
|
|
|
- [ ] Are the [endpoint conventions](https://spec.matrix.org/latest/appendices/#conventions-for-matrix-apis) honoured?
|
|
|
|
|
- [ ] Do HTTP endpoints `use_underscores_like_this`?
|
|
|
|
|
- [ ] Will the endpoint return unbounded data? If so, has pagination been considered?
|
|
|
|
|
- [ ] If the endpoint utilises pagination, is it consistent with [the
|
|
|
|
|
appendices](https://spec.matrix.org/v1.8/appendices/#pagination)?
|
|
|
|
|
- [ ] An introduction exists and clearly outlines the problem being solved.
|
|
|
|
|
Ideally, the first paragraph should be understandable by a non-technical
|
|
|
|
|
audience
|
|
|
|
|
- [ ] All outstanding threads are resolved
|
|
|
|
|
- [ ] All feedback is incorporated into the proposal text itself, either as a fix or noted as an alternative
|
|
|
|
|
- [ ] While the exact sections do not need to be present, the details implied by the proposal template are covered. Namely:
|
|
|
|
|
- [ ] Introduction
|
|
|
|
|
- [ ] Proposal text
|
|
|
|
|
- [ ] Potential issues
|
|
|
|
|
- [ ] Alternatives
|
|
|
|
|
- [ ] Security considerations
|
|
|
|
|
- [ ] Dependencies
|
|
|
|
|
- [ ] Stable identifiers are used throughout the proposal, except for the unstable prefix section
|
|
|
|
|
- [ ] Unstable prefixes [consider](README.md#unstable-prefixes) the awkward accepted-but-not-merged state
|
|
|
|
|
- [ ] Chosen unstable prefixes do not pollute any global namespace (use “org.matrix.mscXXXX”, not “org.matrix”).
|
|
|
|
|
- [ ] Changes have applicable [Sign Off](CONTRIBUTING.md#sign-off) from all authors/editors/contributors
|
Andrew Morgan
6 months ago
committed by