{ "uuid": [ { "value": "cfe8f476-45e3-485a-8d43-60d1c56f2a8e" } ], "langcode": [ { "value": "en" } ], "type": [ { "target_id": "daily_email", "target_type": "node_type", "target_uuid": "8bde1f2f-eef9-4f2d-ae9c-96921f8193d7" } ], "revision_timestamp": [ { "value": "2025-05-11T09:00:32+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": "Planning first or reviewing last?\n" } ], "created": [ { "value": "2023-09-02T00:00:00+00:00" } ], "changed": [ { "value": "2025-05-11T09:00:32+00:00" } ], "promote": [ { "value": false } ], "sticky": [ { "value": false } ], "default_langcode": [ { "value": true } ], "revision_translation_affected": [ { "value": true } ], "path": [ { "alias": "\/daily\/2023\/09\/02\/planning-first-or-reviewing-last", "langcode": "en" } ], "body": [ { "value": "\n
Code reviews are something that happens after the code has been written.<\/p>\n\n
Usually, a task is assigned to someone who completes it and makes the code available to their team members before it's merged.<\/p>\n\n
The problem is that if the implementation is wrong, it's already been written, which costs time and money.<\/p>\n\n
If the change needed to be rewritten or majorly changed before it could be merged, as well as being an awkward conversation, it would cost more time and money to do.<\/p>\n\n
Instead of reviewing the code after it's been written, invest more time into planning how the implementation should work upfront.<\/p>\n\n
What potential solutions exist, and which would work best in this situation?<\/p>\n\n
Write technical design documents and, if needed, create a small proof of concept.<\/p>\n\n
Do this as a team and decide on the approach before any code is written and time or effort is spent.<\/p>\n\n
Then, the person working on the task will have a clearer path, and if you still want to review the code afterwards, you have something to compare it to.<\/p>\n\n ", "format": "full_html", "processed": "\n
Code reviews are something that happens after the code has been written.<\/p>\n\n
Usually, a task is assigned to someone who completes it and makes the code available to their team members before it's merged.<\/p>\n\n
The problem is that if the implementation is wrong, it's already been written, which costs time and money.<\/p>\n\n
If the change needed to be rewritten or majorly changed before it could be merged, as well as being an awkward conversation, it would cost more time and money to do.<\/p>\n\n
Instead of reviewing the code after it's been written, invest more time into planning how the implementation should work upfront.<\/p>\n\n
What potential solutions exist, and which would work best in this situation?<\/p>\n\n
Write technical design documents and, if needed, create a small proof of concept.<\/p>\n\n
Do this as a team and decide on the approach before any code is written and time or effort is spent.<\/p>\n\n
Then, the person working on the task will have a clearer path, and if you still want to review the code afterwards, you have something to compare it to.<\/p>\n\n ", "summary": null } ], "feeds_item": [ { "imported": "1970-01-01T00:33:45+00:00", "guid": null, "hash": "838c549a95c0f1257910cb56a6ab9ebe", "target_type": "feeds_feed", "target_uuid": "90c85284-7ca8-4074-9178-97ff8384fe76" } ] }