100 lines
No EOL
4 KiB
JSON
100 lines
No EOL
4 KiB
JSON
{
|
|
"uuid": [
|
|
{
|
|
"value": "fcd0906c-5337-4f6e-8938-c71c2fe672d8"
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"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": "Non-blocking code reviews\n"
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"created": [
|
|
{
|
|
"value": "2023-09-01T00:00:00+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\/01\/non-blocking-code-reviews",
|
|
"langcode": "en"
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"body": [
|
|
{
|
|
"value": "\n <p>If your team wants or needs to do code reviews, but you don't want it to slow down development, you could implement non-blocking code reviews.<\/p>\n\n<p>Instead of creating a topic branch for a feature or fix, creating a pull or merge request and waiting for it to be reviewed before merging, the commit is merged, and the code is reviewed afterwards.<\/p>\n\n<p>The ticket workflow could look like this:<\/p>\n\n<p>To Do -> Doing -> Merged -> Reviewed -> Tested -> Deployed<\/p>\n\n<p>Or:<\/p>\n\n<p>To Do -> Doing -> Merged -> Deployed -> Tested -> Reviewed<\/p>\n\n<p>The focus is getting the update to production, and the review is deferred.<\/p>\n\n<p>The same CI pipeline rules apply - it must be passing before the code can be deployed, so the same quality checks are run.<\/p>\n\n<p>With this approach, the code is still reviewed, either in the pull or merge request or by the commits on the mainline branch if doing trunk-based development. It's just done later.<\/p>\n\n ",
|
|
"format": "full_html",
|
|
"processed": "\n <p>If your team wants or needs to do code reviews, but you don't want it to slow down development, you could implement non-blocking code reviews.<\/p>\n\n<p>Instead of creating a topic branch for a feature or fix, creating a pull or merge request and waiting for it to be reviewed before merging, the commit is merged, and the code is reviewed afterwards.<\/p>\n\n<p>The ticket workflow could look like this:<\/p>\n\n<p>To Do -> Doing -> Merged -> Reviewed -> Tested -> Deployed<\/p>\n\n<p>Or:<\/p>\n\n<p>To Do -> Doing -> Merged -> Deployed -> Tested -> Reviewed<\/p>\n\n<p>The focus is getting the update to production, and the review is deferred.<\/p>\n\n<p>The same CI pipeline rules apply - it must be passing before the code can be deployed, so the same quality checks are run.<\/p>\n\n<p>With this approach, the code is still reviewed, either in the pull or merge request or by the commits on the mainline branch if doing trunk-based development. It's just done later.<\/p>\n\n ",
|
|
"summary": null
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"feeds_item": [
|
|
{
|
|
"imported": "2025-05-11T09:00:32+00:00",
|
|
"guid": null,
|
|
"hash": "9913b8499ed48ffb98e6df624b87e485",
|
|
"target_type": "feeds_feed",
|
|
"target_uuid": "90c85284-7ca8-4074-9178-97ff8384fe76"
|
|
}
|
|
]
|
|
} |