91 lines
No EOL
4 KiB
JSON
91 lines
No EOL
4 KiB
JSON
{
|
|
"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 <p>Code reviews are something that happens after the code has been written.<\/p>\n\n<p>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<p>The problem is that if the implementation is wrong, it's already been written, which costs time and money.<\/p>\n\n<p>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<h2 id=\"here%27s-the-thing\">Here's the thing<\/h2>\n\n<p>Instead of reviewing the code after it's been written, invest more time into planning how the implementation should work upfront.<\/p>\n\n<p>What potential solutions exist, and which would work best in this situation?<\/p>\n\n<p>Write technical design documents and, if needed, create a small proof of concept.<\/p>\n\n<p>Do this as a team and decide on the approach before any code is written and time or effort is spent.<\/p>\n\n<p>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 <p>Code reviews are something that happens after the code has been written.<\/p>\n\n<p>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<p>The problem is that if the implementation is wrong, it's already been written, which costs time and money.<\/p>\n\n<p>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<h2 id=\"here%27s-the-thing\">Here's the thing<\/h2>\n\n<p>Instead of reviewing the code after it's been written, invest more time into planning how the implementation should work upfront.<\/p>\n\n<p>What potential solutions exist, and which would work best in this situation?<\/p>\n\n<p>Write technical design documents and, if needed, create a small proof of concept.<\/p>\n\n<p>Do this as a team and decide on the approach before any code is written and time or effort is spent.<\/p>\n\n<p>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
|
|
}
|
|
]
|
|
} |