dart-lang/native - Open Source PR Review Scorecard

Dart packages related to native interop and the foreign function interface. Contains code generators for generating bindings for other programming languages and packages related to the hooks system for bundling native code,

C-Rank Grade: A (Welcoming) - 65/100

External PR Merge Rate: 74%

Response Time: -

First Timer Success: 58%

Frequently Asked Questions

Is dart-lang/native welcoming to first-time open-source contributors?

dart-lang/native has a recorded first-timer success rate of 58.3%. Repositories ranked A typically provide actionable feedback during code reviews and actively nurture new community contributors.

How fast can I expect code review feedback on my pull request?

Maintainers in dart-lang/native respond to incoming external pull requests in approximately 0.0 hours on average. Keeping PRs focused on single tasks and ensuring tests pass helps maintainers review faster.

What does the 64.8 C-Rank™ score (A Tier) represent?

The C-Rank™ system evaluates GitHub projects on a 0–100 scale using real data: PR merge rates, review turnaround time, active maintainer presence, and first-time contributor success. A score of 64.8 places dart-lang/native in the A tier.

What is the external contributor pull request merge rate for dart-lang/native?

The external contributor pull request merge rate for dart-lang/native is 73.6%, based on public PR activity from non-core contributors.

Are there Good First Issues available in dart-lang/native?

dart-lang/native currently has 7 active issue(s) tagged with beginner-friendly labels like "good first issue", "beginner", or "up-for-grabs".

dart-lang
dart-lang/nativeA•Welcoming277
GitHub
Back to Explorer
dart-lang

dart-lang/native

277
InactiveA•Welcoming(65/100)Dart

Dart packages related to native interop and the foreign function interface. Contains code generators for generating bindings for other programming languages and packages related to the hooks system for bundling native code,

GitHub
Compare••
Jump to:

AI Maintainer Review Guidelines

Review Persona

Empathetic Technical Mentor

Warmth Score
8.4/10
Patience Score
8.6/10
Nitpick Rate
25%

Highly welcoming maintainers in dart-lang/native. Prompt code reviews with positive guidance for new contributors.

Top PR Submission Do's

  • •Ensure code complies with the project coding style
  • •Keep PRs scoped to a single concern
  • •Include context and link to the related issue

Top PR Friction Pitfalls (Don'ts)

  • •Do not submit PRs without linking an issue
  • •Do not break existing tests without fixing them
  • •Do not mix unrelated refactors in a single PR
Response Velocity
-
No reviewer activity recorded

Average Response Latency

Tracks hours until a maintainer leaves a review, comment, or PR response.

Merge Efficiency
73.6%
Moderate PR acceptance rate

External Acceptance Rate

Percentage of community pull requests successfully merged into main.

First-Timer Success
58.3%
Strong first-timer PR acceptance rate

First PR Conversion

Rate at which developers submitting their first repository PR succeed.

Active Maintainers
32 core
Highly collaborative maintainer core
Diagnostic Health HUD
73.6%
Merge Gauge
58.3%
1st-Timer
Community Vibe47/100

Embed C-Rank Badge

Show contributors that your repository actively reviews and merges external pull requests.

GetMerged C-Rank badge for dart-lang/native
[![GetMerged C-Rank](https://getmerged.abhishekco.de/api/badge/dart-lang/native)](https://getmerged.abhishekco.de/dart-lang/native?utm_source=github&utm_medium=badge)

Active Good First Issues (5)

View on GitHub

At the moment all our C++ integration tests manually set various compilerOptions related to C++. We should instead set some sensible defaults when the language is set to C++.

📅 Opened Sep 14, 2026💬 0 comments
Quality: 60/100Contribute

At the moment the config API gives you two options for passing args to clang, using Input.compilerOptions: Use the defaults, which work for 90% of cases Pass custom args, overwriting the defaults The default params depend on: the host OS the target language specified in the config probably other config elements in future (especially with C++ support in the works) some non-trivial logic that attempts to find system headers Often what users want is to add extra args to the defaults, not replace them. Users shouldn't have to replicate our complicated default arg logic. In my own configs, I often end up importing some of the internal utils that calculate the default args. Option 1: Expose utils The obvious solution would be to clean up and expose those internal utils. That's a bit fiddly because the args depend on elements from the config. There's no clean way of building that API, aside from asking the user to repeat themselves (eg specify the target language in both the config and th

📅 Opened Sep 14, 2026💬 4 comments
Quality: 90/100Contribute

Summary When ffigen skips a typedef whose name matches the struct/union it refers to (the usual opaque-handle idiom typedef struct Foo Foo;), the documentation comment attached to the typedef cursor is discarded. The compound declaration has no comment of its own, so the generated binding and any consumer of ffigen's AST see an undocumented type. Example /// Opaque scene handle; create with scene_new, free with scene_free. typedef struct GeometryScene GeometryScene; typedefdecl_parser.dart logs "Name matches with referred struct/union" and calls addUnsupportedTypealiasToSeen, but never transfers the typedef's doc comment to the referred compound. Expected behavior When a typedef is skipped for having the same name as its compound, hand getCursorDocComment (or equivalent) from the typedef cursor to the compound before the typedef is dropped. Actual behavior The struct/union is generated without documentation. bindsmith works around this with a local header scanner (header_docs.dart) and

📅 Opened Sep 12, 2026💬 1 comment
Quality: 75/100Contribute

We should ignore the version line when checking that the bindings are up to date. It's not very useful and very noisy on version bumps. It turns simple bug fix PRs into >100 file messes: #3586

📅 Opened Sep 9, 2026💬 1 comment
Quality: 60/100Contribute

We tell people to write a Dart config script for FFIgen/JNIgen, and give them a bunch of examples. But if you write a config, and the API elements you expect don't appear in your bindings, it's unclear what to do next. One debugging approach, under the new visitor API, is to write a custom visitor that just prints all the API elements. Then you can see if the problem is that you haven't set the correct entry points (headers etc), or your filters are misconfigured. We should provide a util that does this, so users don't have to do it. Best API is probably an extension method on FfiGenerator/JniGenerator that dumps all the AST nodes (public AST nodes, as seen by a custom visitor). Eg: Func(originalName, USR) ObjCInterface(originalName, USR) ObjCMethod(ObjCInterface(originalName, USR), methodSelector) ... That output is not the most human readable format, but it's clear and greppable. Other suggestions welcome.

📅 Opened Sep 2, 2026💬 2 comments
Quality: 65/100Contribute
Looking for more Dart beginner tasks?Explore Dart GFI

Contributor Community Vibe Feedback

Rate what actually matters after opening a pull request here.

Have you contributed to this repo?

Rate your first-hand PR experience (review speed, maintainer responsiveness, and onboarding ease) to help other contributors.

3 ratings required
Maintainer helpfulness
Review speed
Beginner friendliness

Contributor Compatibility & Review Speed Analysis for dart-lang/native

When evaluating whether to contribute to dart-lang/native, response velocity and maintainer engagement are crucial. GetMerged continuously tracks pull request trajectories, first-comment latency, and code review rounds to help developers avoid submitting pull requests to backlogged repositories.

Currently, maintainers of dart-lang/native acknowledge new external contributions in approximately -. Out of all submitted pull requests from non-core authors in the last 180-day window, 73.6% were successfully merged into the primary branch.

Frequently Asked Questions - Contributing to dart-lang/native

01

Is dart-lang/native welcoming to first-time open-source contributors?

dart-lang/native has a recorded first-timer success rate of 58.3%. Repositories ranked Welcoming typically provide actionable feedback during code reviews and actively nurture new community contributors.

02

How fast can I expect code review feedback on my pull request?

The initial maintainer response time averages ~-. Keeping PRs scoped to single concerns and ensuring CI checks succeed will optimize review turnaround.

03

What does the 64.8 C-Rank™ score represent?

The C-Rank™ index scores repositories on a 0 to 100 scale using an objective formula: external PR merge rates, initial response speed, active maintainer count, and first-time contributor retention. A score of 64.8 places dart-lang/native in the Welcoming tier.

04

What is the external contributor pull request merge rate for dart-lang/native?

The external pull request merge rate is 73.6%. GetMerged isolates non-core community contributions so external developers get an accurate benchmark of PR acceptance probability.

05

Are there beginner Good First Issues open in dart-lang/native?

Yes, dart-lang/native currently has 7 active issue(s) tagged with beginner-friendly labels. You can inspect these directly from the repository issues tab.

GetMerged C-Rank™ Indexing Standard

All metrics displayed for dart-lang/native are automatically retrieved via the public GitHub API and recalculated daily. Insider pull requests submitted by repository owners or organization members are excluded from merge rate calculations to preserve objective external contributor statistics.