Conventions on commit message names and PRs etc; including dev process

[civsiv]

Suggested process:

1. Clone 
2. Create a branch
3. Fix
4. Run tests locally (e.g. $ npm run lint-fix $ npm test)
5. Create a draft PR
6. Check tests in CI pass (and fix if necessary)
7. Move PR out of draft
8. Add a reviewer
9. Review - maybe have a call, comment, and ultimately approved by reviewer
10. Merged into master by contributor
11. Final tests run in master
12. May trigger recreation of other tools; contributor to review these downstream auto-generated PRs and merge(note need to reference diagram / other approach to know which repos to check downstream)

Note: keep PRs small where possible, try not to have long-running dev branches

Conventional commits: Using feat: prefix etc. Branch names (feature/ noting coverage/ is an exception in test suite)

• Pre-commit hooks (Husky), and what to do if commits fail
• Referencing packages locally in package.json (to test dependency changes locally)
• Debugging in VSCode with different projects (local settings etc)
  • Include breakpoints

[nickevansuk]

Reviewed 👍 https://contributor.openactive.io/development-process