Skip to Content

Changes for page Peer reviews

Last modified by Danniar Firdausy on 2024/09/18 14:42
From version 22.1
edited by Eva Torken
on 2023/08/23 13:51
Change comment: There is no comment for this version
To version 20.1
edited by Erik Bakker
on 2022/08/30 08:28
Change comment: There is no comment for this version

Summary

Details

Page properties
Author
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1 -XWiki.etorken
1 +XWiki.ebakker
Default language
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -en
Content
... ... @@ -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.
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. In the 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  
... ... @@ -24,14 +24,8 @@
24 24  
25 25  == 3. Running peer reviews in eMagiz ==
26 26  
27 -=== 3.1 Who and when ===
27 +=== 3.1 Considerations for reviewee ===
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.
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.
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
... ... @@ -41,7 +41,7 @@
41 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.
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 ===
38 +=== 3.2 Considerations for reviewer ===
45 45  
46 46  Here are some things to keep in mind when peer reviewing the work .
47 47  
... ... @@ -92,12 +92,18 @@
92 92   ** Cloud over on-premise
93 93   ** No hard-coded variable – use properties
94 94  
95 -== 4. Key takeaways ==
89 +== 4. Assignment ==
96 96  
91 +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.
92 +
93 +== 5. Key takeaways ==
94 +
97 97  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.
98 98  
99 -== 5. Suggested Additional Readings ==
97 +== 6. Suggested Additional Readings ==
100 100  
101 101  You will find plenty background items available on the Internet.
102 102  
103 -)))((({{toc/}}))){{/container}}{{/container}}
101 +== 7. Silent demonstration video ==
102 +
103 +As this is a more theoretical microlearning we have no video for this.)))((({{toc/}}))){{/container}}{{/container}}