harmonyos-review

HarmonyOS Code Review

Find real defects, not checklist-shaped speculation. Repository code and configuration establish what the application does; official Huawei documentation establishes version-sensitive platform contracts.

1. Fix the review scope

• Read repository instructions and inspect working-tree state before reviewing.
• Determine the requested boundary: diff/PR, files, module, subsystem, or whole repository.
• For change reviews, identify the exact base and inspect both the diff and affected call sites.
• Read build-profile.json5, oh-package.json5, module.json5, and related configuration to establish SDK levels, application model, devices, permissions, dependencies, and build variants.
• Do not modify code, create reports, assign grades, or estimate effort unless the user asks.

2. Map the relevant execution paths

Start broad, then follow evidence:

• Locate entry points, lifecycle callbacks, state owners, async boundaries, persistence operations, file operations, permissions, event subscriptions, and external inputs.
• Trace values and resources through callers and callees. Inspect cleanup, cancellation, retry, failure, and partial-success paths.
• Check tests and docs for intended behavior, but do not treat them as proof that production code is safe.
• Use focused searches to find candidates. A text match is a lead, never a finding.

Example reconnaissance commands:

rg -n --glob '*.ets' --glob '*.ts' 'eventHub\.(on|off)|emitter\.(on|off)|setInterval|setTimeout'
rg -n 

Adapt patterns to the repository. Exclude generated, dependency, build-output, fixture, and test-data directories when they create noise.

3. Analyze only applicable categories

Load references/checklist.md and select categories supported by the scope:

• Correctness and error propagation
• Security, privacy, and sensitive data
• Lifecycle, resource ownership, and cancellation
• V1/V2 state management and concurrent updates
• RDB, Preferences, files, migration, and atomicity
• Permissions, SysCaps, devices, and API compatibility
• Network and external-input handling
• Performance issues with a concrete expensive path
• Tests covering changed or high-risk behavior

For platform-dependent claims, consult references/official-docs.md and verify against current official Huawei documentation. Do not hard-code “current” API versions or infer a requirement from another framework.

4. Prove each finding

A reportable finding needs all of the following:

1. A precise source location.
2. A reachable trigger or execution path.
3. The incorrect behavior or violated project/platform contract.
4. A concrete user, data, security, compatibility, or operational impact.
5. Evidence that existing guards, cleanup, or callers do not already prevent it.

Before reporting, try to disprove the candidate:

• Read the complete function and relevant callers/callees.
• Check every success, error, cancellation, and teardown path.
• Search for compensating validation or cleanup elsewhere.
• Confirm the API/decorator/permission behavior for the project's actual SDK range.
• Distinguish production code from examples, generated code, dead code, and test fixtures.

Do not report style preferences, arbitrary size limits, generic “could be” risks, or scanner matches without demonstrated impact.

5. Assign severity from impact

• Critical: Exploitable security issue, irreversible data loss, or release-blocking failure on a core path.
• High: Likely crash, corruption, security/privacy breach, or core-feature failure.
• Medium: Real defect with narrower conditions, recoverable impact, or significant degradation.
• Low: Minor concrete defect with limited impact; omit pure polish unless requested.

Severity reflects impact and likelihood, not fix difficulty.

6. Report findings first

Unless the user requests a repository document, respond in the conversation. Use references/report-template.md only when a full Markdown artifact is requested.

Order findings by severity. Each finding should contain:

• [severity] concise title
• path/to/file.ets:line
• Trigger and evidence
• Impact
• Focused remediation
• Official source when the finding depends on a HarmonyOS contract

If no findings meet the evidence bar, say so explicitly. Then note coverage gaps and unrun validation separately; do not inflate them into findings.

Exit criteria

• Scope and SDK/device assumptions are explicit.
• Every finding is source-evidenced and independently actionable.
• Platform claims are checked against the project's version range.
• Findings, open questions, and unverified risks are clearly separated.
• Tests/builds run are reported accurately; unrun checks are not described as passed.