Skip to Content

Changes for page Peer reviews

Last modified by Danniar Firdausy on 2024/09/18 14:42
From version 21.1
edited by Erik Bakker
on 2022/08/30 08:34
Change comment: There is no comment for this version
To version 16.2
edited by Erik Bakker
on 2022/06/10 10:39
Change comment: Update document after refactoring.

Summary

Details

Page properties
Title
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1 -Peer reviews
1 +intermediate-devops-perspectives-peerreview
Default language
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -en
Content
... ... @@ -1,8 +1,13 @@
1 1  {{container}}{{container layoutStyle="columns"}}(((
2 += Running peer reviews inside eMagiz DevOps team =
3 +
2 2  In this microlearning, we will take a look at peer reviews for eMagiz.
3 3  
4 4  Should you have any questions, please contact [[academy@emagiz.com>>mailto:academy@emagiz.com]].
5 5  
8 +* Last update: April 22nd, 2021
9 +* Required reading time: 8 minutes
10 +
6 6  == 1. Prerequisites ==
7 7  
8 8  * Basic knowledge of the eMagiz platform
... ... @@ -9,7 +9,7 @@
9 9  
10 10  == 2. Key concepts ==
11 11  
12 -Peer reviews are defined as follows: A disciplined engineering practice for detecting and correcting defects in software artifacts and preventing their leakage into production. Its a well known and working concept with IT organization, and it can definetely applied in DevOps teams that have eMagiz as one of the technology pillars.
17 +Peer reviews are defined as follows: A disciplined engineering practice for detecting and correcting defects in software artifacts and preventing their leakage into production. Its a well known and working concept with IT organization, and it can definetely applied in DevOps teams that have eMagiz as one of the technology pillars. In tbe context of eMagiz, peer reviews are done usually after the Create phase.
13 13  
14 14  [[image:Main.Images.Microlearning.WebHome@intermediate-devops-perspectives-peerreview-1.png]]
15 15  
... ... @@ -22,76 +22,74 @@
22 22  * Architecture challenge and verification
23 23  * Find alternative solutions
24 24  
25 -== 3. Running peer reviews in eMagiz ==
26 26  
27 -=== 3.1 Who and when ===
28 28  
29 -Doing peer reviews increases the quality of the delivered work by the team. This means it is the whole team's responsibility to ensure peer reviews are performed. Following that logic, asking different individuals within your team for other peer reviews makes sense.
32 +== 3. Running peer reviews in eMagiz ==
30 30  
31 -As described below, peer reviews should be conducted for every critical decision when building an integration solution via the eMagiz platform. See section 3.3 for a detailed list.
34 +=== 3.1 Considerations for reviewee ===
32 32  
33 -=== 3.2 Considerations for reviewee ===
34 -
35 35  Here are some things to keep in mind when presenting the work to peer review.
36 36  
37 37  * Quickly explain the story / task / background
38 38  * Quickly show the working result if applicable / practical
39 39  * Talk through the solution while showing the models / code
40 - ** Just trying to explain your work to someone else will help spot mistakes
41 - ** Don’t show every single detail but try to highlight the important parts and/or details you’re less sure about. This takes time and experience to get “right” and is different depending on the story, the reviewee, the reviewer, the project, etc.
41 + * Just trying to explain your work to someone else will help spot mistakes
42 + * Don’t show every single detail but try to highlight the important parts and/or details you’re less sure about. This takes time and experience to get “right” and is different depending on the story, the reviewee, the reviewer, the project, etc.
42 42  * Always do a peer review, no exceptions. Making assumptions about the usefulness beforehand defeats the whole purpose.
43 43  
44 -=== 3.3 Considerations for reviewer ===
45 +=== 3.2 Considerations for reviewer ===
45 45  
46 46  Here are some things to keep in mind when peer reviewing the work .
47 47  
48 48  * Ask questions
49 - ** How does this work?
50 - ** Why did you decide to …?
51 - ** Did you think about …?
50 + * How does this work?
51 + * Why did you decide to …?
52 + * Did you think about …?
52 52  * Spot (incorrect) assumptions
53 53  * Check application of best practices – see next slide
54 - ** Modelling / coding patterns
55 - ** Naming conventions
56 - ** Errors / warnings
55 + * Modelling / coding patterns
56 + * Naming conventions
57 + * Errors / warnings
57 57  * Notice non-standard / unusual / abnormal things
58 - ** Make sure this is documented, mainly for future changes. Annotations are very useful here.
59 + * Make sure this is documented, mainly for future changes. Annotations are very useful here.
59 59  
60 60  === 3.3 Peer review items per ILM Phase ===
61 61  
62 62  * Capture
63 - ** 100% filled
64 - ** Connection method clear
65 - ** Authentication method clear
66 - ** Definitions loaded
67 - ** Sizing impact understood and valid
64 + * 100% filled
65 + * Connection method clear
66 + * Authentication method clear
67 + * Definitions loaded
68 + * Sizing impact understood and valid
68 68  * Design
69 - ** Check solution architecture validity
70 - ** Design 100% filled and clear
71 - ** CDM Root entity mapped
72 - ** Set as mapped – avoid line mapping
73 - ** Use annotation where possible
74 - ** Proper flow and system settings
70 + * Check solution architecture validity
71 + * Design 100% filled and clear
72 + * CDM Root entity mapped
73 + * Set as mapped – avoid line mapping
74 + * Use annotation where possible
75 + * Proper flow and system settings
75 75  * Create
76 - ** Validate routing
77 - ** Generic error response flows
78 - ** Check naming conventions flows, properties and XSD
79 - ** Split messages in on-ramp – not later
77 + * Validate routing
78 + * Generic error response flows
79 + * Check naming conventions flows, properties and XSD
80 + * Split messages in on-ramp – not later
80 80  * Deploy
81 - ** Check properties
82 - ** Avoid too many different flow versions – max. 2
83 - ** Remove test packages that are deployed
82 + * Check properties
83 + * Avoid too many different flow versions – max. 2
84 + * Remove test packages that are deployed
84 84  * Manage
85 - ** All alerts mapped to Customer Support
86 - ** All messages can be explained
87 - ** Avoid code mappings
88 - ** Enable default alerts
86 + * All alerts mapped to Customer Support
87 + * All messages can be explained
88 + * Avoid code mappings
89 + * Enable default alerts
89 89  * Architecture
90 - ** Deploy connector close to the source/target system
91 - ** Ensure ACCP and PROD are exact copies
92 - ** Cloud over on-premise
93 - ** No hard-coded variable – use properties
91 + * Deploy connector close to the source/target system
92 + * Ensure ACCP and PROD are exact copies
93 + * Cloud over on-premise
94 + * No hard-coded variable – use properties
94 94  
96 +
97 +
95 95  == 4. Assignment ==
96 96  
97 97  See how peer reviews are currently implemented within the projects on which you work to see if you can learn something from the information you have gathered via this microlearning.
... ... @@ -100,6 +100,8 @@
100 100  
101 101  Peer reviews are instrumental in any DevOps team. Use the provided list as your team's peer review starting point and tune as you go along.
102 102  
106 +
107 +
103 103  == 6. Suggested Additional Readings ==
104 104  
105 105  You will find plenty background items available on the Internet.
... ... @@ -106,4 +106,6 @@
106 106  
107 107  == 7. Silent demonstration video ==
108 108  
109 -As this is a more theoretical microlearning we have no video for this.)))((({{toc/}}))){{/container}}{{/container}}
114 +As this is a more theoretical microlearning we have no video for this.
115 +
116 +)))((({{toc/}}))){{/container}}{{/container}}