Peer reviews - eMagiz

{{container}}{{container layoutStyle="columns"}}(((

Welcome to this microlearning session on peer reviews with eMagiz. In this microlearning, we will explore how peer reviews can enhance the quality of your integration solutions on the eMagiz platform. We will cover essential prerequisites, key concepts, and practical tips for running effective peer reviews. Whether you are new to peer reviews or looking to refine your process, this session will provide valuable insights to help you and your team achieve higher quality and consistency.

4

5

Should you have any questions, please contact [[academy@emagiz.com>>mailto:academy@emagiz.com]].

6

7

== 1. Prerequisites ==

8

9

* Basic knowledge of the eMagiz platform

10

11

== 2. Key concepts ==

12

13

This microlearning centers on peer-reviews.

14

* By Peer reviews, we mean: A disciplined engineering practice for detecting and correcting defects in software artifacts and preventing their leakage into production.

15

16

== 3. Running peer reviews in eMagiz ==

17

18

Peer reviews is 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.

19

20

[[image:Main.Images.Microlearning.WebHome@intermediate-devops-perspectives-peerreview-1.png]]

21

22

Key benefits of peer reviews:

23

24

* Improved quality of integrations

25

* Higher consistency

26

* Knowledge sharing

27

* Keeping standards for optimal maintenance

28

* Architecture challenge and verification

29

* Find alternative solutions

30

31

=== 3.1 Who and when ===

32

33

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.

34

35

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.

36

37

=== 3.2 Considerations for reviewee ===

38

39

Here are some things to keep in mind when presenting the work to peer review.

40

41

* Quickly explain the story / task / background

42

* Quickly show the working result if applicable / practical

43

* Talk through the solution while showing the models / code

44

** Just trying to explain your work to someone else will help spot mistakes

45

** 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.

46

* Always do a peer review, no exceptions. Making assumptions about the usefulness beforehand defeats the whole purpose.

47

48

=== 3.3 Considerations for reviewer ===

49

50

Here are some things to keep in mind when peer reviewing the work .

51

52

* Ask questions

53

** How does this work?

54

** Why did you decide to …?

55

** Did you think about …?

56

* Spot (incorrect) assumptions

57

* Check application of best practices – see next slide

58

** Modelling / coding patterns

59

** Naming conventions

60

** Errors / warnings

61

* Notice non-standard / unusual / abnormal things

62

** Make sure this is documented, mainly for future changes. Annotations are very useful here.

63

64

=== 3.3 Peer review items per ILM Phase ===

* Capture

** 100% filled

** Connection method clear

69

** Authentication method clear

70

** Definitions loaded

71

** Sizing impact understood and valid

72

* Design

73

** Check solution architecture validity

74

** Design 100% filled and clear

75

** CDM Root entity mapped

76

** Set as mapped – avoid line mapping

77

** Use annotation where possible

78

** Proper flow and system settings

79

* Create

80

** Validate routing

81

** Generic error response flows

82

** Check naming conventions flows, properties and XSD

83

** Split messages in on-ramp – not later

84

* Deploy

85

** Check properties

86

** Avoid too many different flow versions – max. 2

87

** Remove test packages that are deployed

88

* Manage

89

** All alerts mapped to Customer Support

90

** All messages can be explained

91

** Avoid code mappings

92

** Enable default alerts

93

* Architecture

94

** Deploy connector close to the source/target system

95

** Ensure ACCP and PROD are exact copies

96

** Cloud over on-premise

97

** No hard-coded variable – use properties

98

99

== 4. Key takeaways ==

100

101

* Peer reviews are essential in any DevOps team for improving the quality of your integration solutions by identifying and correcting defects early in the development process.

102

* Implement a structured approach to peer reviews by following the provided checklist for each Integration Lifecycle Management (ILM) phase. This will help maintain consistency and thoroughness in your reviews.

103

* Use the peer review process not only to catch errors but also to foster knowledge sharing and challenge architectural decisions. Adjust the peer review process as needed based on team feedback and evolving project requirements.

104

105

== 5. Suggested Additional Readings ==

106

107

You will find plenty background items available on the Internet. If you are interested in this topic within the eMagiz platform, please see the following link:

108

109

* [[Crash Courses (Menu)>>doc:Main.eMagiz Academy.Microlearnings.Crash Course.WebHome||target="blank"]]

110

** [[Crash Course Platform (Navigation)>>doc:Main.eMagiz Academy.Microlearnings.Crash Course.Crash Course Platform.WebHome||target="blank"]]

111

*** [[The five phases of eMagiz (Explanation)>>doc:Main.eMagiz Academy.Microlearnings.Crash Course.Crash Course Platform.crashcourse-platform-intro-the-five-phases-of-emagiz||target="blank"]]

112

* [[Peer Review (Search Results)>>url:https://docs.emagiz.com/bin/view/Main/Search?sort=score&sortOrder=desc&highlight=true&facet=true&r=1&f_space_facet=0%2FMain.&l_space_facet=10&f_type=DOCUMENT&f_locale=en&f_locale=&f_locale=en&text=%22peer+review%22||target="blank"]]

113

)))((({{toc/}}))){{/container}}{{/container}}

Wiki source code of Peer reviews

Navigation