{ "uuid": [ { "value": "4d1139c2-0183-4670-af08-003694dec455" } ], "langcode": [ { "value": "en" } ], "type": [ { "target_id": "daily_email", "target_type": "node_type", "target_uuid": "8bde1f2f-eef9-4f2d-ae9c-96921f8193d7" } ], "revision_timestamp": [ { "value": "2025-05-11T09:00:34+00:00" } ], "revision_uid": [ { "target_type": "user", "target_uuid": "b8966985-d4b2-42a7-a319-2e94ccfbb849" } ], "revision_log": [], "status": [ { "value": true } ], "uid": [ { "target_type": "user", "target_uuid": "b8966985-d4b2-42a7-a319-2e94ccfbb849" } ], "title": [ { "value": "CI pipelines are an automated code review\n" } ], "created": [ { "value": "2023-08-29T00:00:00+00:00" } ], "changed": [ { "value": "2025-05-11T09:00:34+00:00" } ], "promote": [ { "value": false } ], "sticky": [ { "value": false } ], "default_langcode": [ { "value": true } ], "revision_translation_affected": [ { "value": true } ], "path": [ { "alias": "\/daily\/2023\/08\/29\/ci-pipelines-are-an-automated-code-review", "langcode": "en" } ], "body": [ { "value": "\n

I've worked on various teams over the last 13 years on which we've needed to do feature branches, pull requests and code reviews.<\/p>\n\n

If the request isn't approved by (usually) two people, it won't be merged.<\/p>\n\n

Instead of focusing on the problem that needed to be solved and how I'd done it, many reviews focused on the small details.<\/p>\n\n

Do the lines have the correct number of spaces before them?<\/p>\n\n

Do the comments end with a full stop?<\/p>\n\n

Do the lines wrap at the correct point, and are your variable names in the right case?<\/p>\n\n

Essentially, does the code comply with the agreed coding standards?<\/p>\n\n

Here's the thing<\/h2>\n\n

Whilst important (you want the code to follow standards and be in a consistent format), doing these checks manually is not a good use of time and is not what the code review should focus on.<\/p>\n\n

These checks can be automated using CI pipelines or Git hooks to run tools like PHPCS to review and sometimes fix coding standards issues.<\/p>\n\n

Automating these checks means the Developers can focus on what they should be reviewing.<\/p>\n\n

How are they solving the problem, not how many spaces is the code indented by.<\/p>\n\n ", "format": "full_html", "processed": "\n

I've worked on various teams over the last 13 years on which we've needed to do feature branches, pull requests and code reviews.<\/p>\n\n

If the request isn't approved by (usually) two people, it won't be merged.<\/p>\n\n

Instead of focusing on the problem that needed to be solved and how I'd done it, many reviews focused on the small details.<\/p>\n\n

Do the lines have the correct number of spaces before them?<\/p>\n\n

Do the comments end with a full stop?<\/p>\n\n

Do the lines wrap at the correct point, and are your variable names in the right case?<\/p>\n\n

Essentially, does the code comply with the agreed coding standards?<\/p>\n\n

Here's the thing<\/h2>\n\n

Whilst important (you want the code to follow standards and be in a consistent format), doing these checks manually is not a good use of time and is not what the code review should focus on.<\/p>\n\n

These checks can be automated using CI pipelines or Git hooks to run tools like PHPCS to review and sometimes fix coding standards issues.<\/p>\n\n

Automating these checks means the Developers can focus on what they should be reviewing.<\/p>\n\n

How are they solving the problem, not how many spaces is the code indented by.<\/p>\n\n ", "summary": null } ] }