[naga] Add a review checklist. (#6906)

CONTRIBUTING.md

@@ -131,3 +131,8 @@ you make significant efforts…
 The "Assigned" field on a PR indicates who has taken responsibility
 for reviewing the PR, not who is responsible for the content of the
 PR.
+
+You can see some common things that PR reviewers are going to look for in
+[`REVIEW-CHECKLIST.md`].
+
+[`REVIEW-CHECKLIST.md`]: ./REVIEW-CHECKLIST.md

REVIEW-CHECKLIST.md

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+# Review Checklist
+
+This is a collection of notes on things to watch out for when
+reviewing pull requests submitted to wgpu and Naga.
+
+Ideally, we want to keep items off this list entirely:
+
+- Using Rust effectively can turn some mistakes into compile-time
+  errors. For example, in Naga, using exhaustive matching ensures that
+  changes to the IR will cause compile-time errors in any code that
+  hasn't been updated.
+
+- Refactoring can gather together all the code responsible for
+  enforcing some invariant in one place, making it clear whether a
+  change preserves it or not. For example, Naga localizes all handle
+  validation to `naga::valid::Validator::validate_module_handles`,
+  allowing the rest of the validator to assume that all handles are
+  valid.
+
+- Offering custom abstractions can help contributors avoid
+  implementing a weaker abstraction by themselves. For example,
+  because `HandleSet` and `HandleVec` are used throughout Naga,
+  contributors are less likely to write code that uses a `BitSet` or
+  `Vec` on handle indices, which would invite bugs by erasing the
+  handle types.
+
+This checklist gathers up the concerns that we haven't found a
+satisfying way to address in a more robust way.
+
+## Naga
+
+### General
+
+- [ ] If your change iterates over a collection, did you ensure the
+      order of iteration was deterministic? Using `HashMap` and
+      `HashSet` is fine, as long as you don't iterate over it.
+
+### WGSL Extensions
+
+- [ ] If you added a new feature to WGSL that is not covered by the
+      WebGPU specification:
+  - [ ] Did you add a `Capability` flag for it?
+  - [ ] Did you document the feature fully in that flag's doc comment?
+  - [ ] Did you ensure the validator rejects programs that use the
+        feature unless its capability is enabled?
+
+### IR changes
+
+If your change adds or removes `Handle`s from the IR:
+- [ ] Did you update handle validation in `valid::handles`?
+- [ ] Did you update the compactor in `compact`?
+- [ ] Did you update `back::pipeline_constants::adjust_expr`?
+
+If your change adds a new operation:
+- [ ] Did you update the typifier in `proc::typifier`?
+- [ ] Did you update the validator in `valid::expression`?
+- [ ] If the operation can be used in constant expressions, did you
+      update the constant evaluator in `proc::constant_evaluator`?
+
+### Backend changes
+
+- [ ] If your change introduces any new identifiers to generated code,
+      how did you ensure they won't conflict with the users'
+      identifiers? (This is usually not relevant to the SPIR-V
+      backend.)
+  - [ ] Did you use the `Namer` to generate a fresh identifier?
+  - [ ] Did you register the identifier as a reserved word with the the `Namer`?
+  - [ ] Did you use a reserved prefix registered with the `Namer`?