Skip to content
Snippets Groups Projects
Unverified Commit 38a1117b authored by Sean Madsen's avatar Sean Madsen Committed by GitHub
Browse files

Merge pull request #442 from totten/master-revtpl2 

standard/review - Consistent order. Use comments for instructions. Emphasize r-run prose.
parents 8072fae2 d5c203b5
No related branches found
No related tags found
No related merge requests found
Hide whitespace changes
Inline Side-by-side
docs/standards/review.md
+ 1
− 1
View file @ 38a1117b
......@@ -13,7 +13,7 @@ write a long, bespoke blurb.
You may conduct a structured review, checking each standard in turn. Doing this will be easier if you copy a template and paste it into your Github comment.
* When conducting your first or second structured review, copy [template-mc-1.0.md](https://raw.githubusercontent.com/civicrm/civicrm-dev-docs/master/docs/standards/review/template-mc-1.0.md). It provides several examples.
* When conducting your first or second structured review, copy [template-del-1.0.md](https://raw.githubusercontent.com/civicrm/civicrm-dev-docs/master/docs/standards/review/template-del-1.0.md) or [template-mc-1.0.md](https://raw.githubusercontent.com/civicrm/civicrm-dev-docs/master/docs/standards/review/template-mc-1.0.md). It provides several examples.
* Once you're familiar with the criteria, copy [template-word-1.0.md](https://raw.githubusercontent.com/civicrm/civicrm-dev-docs/master/docs/standards/review/template-word-1.0.md). It's a bit shorter and quicker.
## Common standards
......
docs/standards/review/template-del-1.0.md
+ 21
− 22
View file @ 38a1117b
......@@ -6,47 +6,46 @@
* __UNREVIEWED__
* __PASS__ : The PR has a JIRA reference. (Or: it does not need one.)
* __ISSUE__: Please file a ticket in [JIRA](http://issues.civicrm.org/) and place it in the subject
* __COMMENTS__: *(optional)*
* __COMMENTS__: <!-- optional -->
* Test results ([`r-test`](https://docs.civicrm.org/dev/en/latest/standards/review/#r-test))
* __UNREVIEWED__
* __PASS__: The test results are all-clear.
* __PASS__: The test results have failures, but these have been individually inspected and found to be irrelevant.
* __ISSUE__: The test failures need to be resolved.
* __COMMENTS__: *(optional)*
* __COMMENTS__: <!-- optional -->
* Code quality ([`r-code`](https://docs.civicrm.org/dev/en/latest/standards/review/#r-code))
* __UNREVIEWED__
* __PASS__: The functionality, purpose, and style of the code seems clear+sensible.
* __ISSUE__: Something was unclear to me.
* __ISSUE__: The approach should be different.
* __COMMENTS__: *(optional)*
* __COMMENTS__: <!-- optional -->
* Documentation ([`r-doc`](https://docs.civicrm.org/dev/en/latest/standards/review/#r-doc))
* __UNREVIEWED__
* __PASS__: There are relevant updates for the documentation.
* __PASS__: The changes do not require documentation.
* __ISSUE__: The user documentation should be updated.
* __ISSUE__: The administrator documentation should be updated.
* __ISSUE__: The developer documentation should be updated.
* __COMMENTS__: <!-- optional -->
* Maintainability ([`r-maint`](https://docs.civicrm.org/dev/en/latest/standards/review/#r-maint))
* __UNREVIEWED__
* __PASS__: The change sufficiently improves test coverage, or the change is trivial enough that it does not require tests.
* __PASS__: The change does not sufficiently improve test coverage, but special circumstances make it important to accept the change anyway.
* __ISSUE__: The change does not sufficiently improve test coverage.
* __COMMENTS__: <!-- optional -->
* Run it ([`r-run`](https://docs.civicrm.org/dev/en/latest/standards/review/#r-run))
* __UNREVIEWED__
* __PASS__: I executed the code in a few plausible ways, and it behaved as expected.
* __ISSUE__: I executed the code in a few plausible ways, and it had a problem.
* __COMMENTS__: *(optional)*
* __PASS__: <!-- describe how you ran it -->
* __ISSUE__: <!-- describe how you ran it -->
* User impact ([`r-user`](https://docs.civicrm.org/dev/en/latest/standards/review/#r-user))
* __UNREVIEWED__
* __PASS__: The change would be intuitive or unnoticeable for a majority of users who work with this feature.
* __ISSUE__: The change would noticeably impact the user-experience (eg requiring retraining).
* __PASS__: The change would noticeably impact the user-experience (eg requiring retraining), but this has been addressed with a suitable transition/communication plan.
* __COMMENTS__: *(optional)*
* __COMMENTS__: <!-- optional -->
* Technical impact ([`r-tech`](https://docs.civicrm.org/dev/en/latest/standards/review/#r-tech))
* __UNREVIEWED__
* __PASS__: The change preserves compatibility with existing callers/code/downstream.
* __PASS__: The change potentially affects compatibility, but the risks have been sufficiently managed.
* __ISSUE__: The change potentially affects compatibility, and the risks have **not** been sufficiently managed.
* __COMMENTS__: *(optional)*
* Maintainability ([`r-maint`](https://docs.civicrm.org/dev/en/latest/standards/review/#r-maint))
* __UNREVIEWED__
* __PASS__: The change sufficiently improves test coverage, or the change is trivial enough that it does not require tests.
* __PASS__: The change does not sufficiently improve test coverage, but special circumstances make it important to accept the change anyway.
* __ISSUE__: The change does not sufficiently improve test coverage.
* __COMMENTS__: *(optional)*
* Documentation ([`r-doc`](https://docs.civicrm.org/dev/en/latest/standards/review/#r-doc))
* __UNREVIEWED__
* __PASS__: There are relevant updates for the documentation.
* __PASS__: The changes do not require documentation.
* __ISSUE__: The user documentation should be updated.
* __ISSUE__: The administrator documentation should be updated.
* __ISSUE__: The developer documentation should be updated.
* __COMMENTS__: *(optional)*
* __COMMENTS__: <!-- optional -->
docs/standards/review/template-mc-1.0.md
+ 19
− 19
View file @ 38a1117b
......@@ -5,39 +5,39 @@
* JIRA ([`r-jira`](https://docs.civicrm.org/dev/en/latest/standards/review/#r-jira))
* [ ] __PASS__ : The PR has a JIRA reference. (Or: it does not need one.)
* [ ] __ISSUE__: Please file a ticket in [JIRA](http://issues.civicrm.org/) and place it in the subject
* [ ] __COMMENTS__: *(optional)*
* [ ] __COMMENTS__: <!-- optional -->
* Test results ([`r-test`](https://docs.civicrm.org/dev/en/latest/standards/review/#r-test))
* [ ] __PASS__: The test results are all-clear.
* [ ] __PASS__: The test results have failures, but these have been individually inspected and found to be irrelevant.
* [ ] __ISSUE__: The test failures need to be resolved.
* [ ] __COMMENTS__: *(optional)*
* [ ] __COMMENTS__: <!-- optional -->
* Code quality ([`r-code`](https://docs.civicrm.org/dev/en/latest/standards/review/#r-code))
* [ ] __PASS__: The functionality, purpose, and style of the code seems clear+sensible.
* [ ] __ISSUE__: Something was unclear to me.
* [ ] __ISSUE__: The approach should be different.
* [ ] __COMMENTS__: *(optional)*
* [ ] __COMMENTS__: <!-- optional -->
* Documentation ([`r-doc`](https://docs.civicrm.org/dev/en/latest/standards/review/#r-doc))
* [ ] __PASS__: There are relevant updates for the documentation, or the changes do not require documentation.
* [ ] __ISSUE__: The user documentation should be updated.
* [ ] __ISSUE__: The administrator documentation should be updated.
* [ ] __ISSUE__: The developer documentation should be updated.
* [ ] __COMMENTS__: <!-- optional -->
* Maintainability ([`r-maint`](https://docs.civicrm.org/dev/en/latest/standards/review/#r-maint))
* [ ] __PASS__: The change sufficiently improves test coverage, or the change is trivial enough that it does not require tests.
* [ ] __PASS__: The change does not sufficiently improve test coverage, but special circumstances make it important to accept the change anyway.
* [ ] __ISSUE__: The change does not sufficiently improve test coverage.
* [ ] __COMMENTS__: <!-- optional -->
* Run it ([`r-run`](https://docs.civicrm.org/dev/en/latest/standards/review/#r-run))
* [ ] __PASS__: I executed the code in a few plausible ways, and it behaved as expected.
* [ ] __ISSUE__: I executed the code in a few plausible ways, and it had a problem.
* [ ] __COMMENTS__: *(optional)*
* [ ] __PASS__: <!-- describe how you ran it -->
* [ ] __ISSUE__: <!-- describe how you ran it -->
* [ ] __COMMENTS__: <!-- optional -->
* User impact ([`r-user`](https://docs.civicrm.org/dev/en/latest/standards/review/#r-user))
* [ ] __PASS__: The change would be intuitive or unnoticeable for a majority of users who work with this feature.
* [ ] __ISSUE__: The change would noticeably impact the user-experience (eg requiring retraining).
* [ ] __PASS__: The change would noticeably impact the user-experience (eg requiring retraining), but this has been addressed with a suitable transition/communication plan.
* [ ] __COMMENTS__: *(optional)*
* [ ] __COMMENTS__: <!-- optional -->
* Technical impact ([`r-tech`](https://docs.civicrm.org/dev/en/latest/standards/review/#r-tech))
* [ ] __PASS__: The change preserves compatibility with existing callers/code/downstream.
* [ ] __PASS__: The change potentially affects compatibility, but the risks have been sufficiently managed.
* [ ] __ISSUE__: The change potentially affects compatibility, and the risks have **not** been sufficiently managed.
* [ ] __COMMENTS__: *(optional)*
* Maintainability ([`r-maint`](https://docs.civicrm.org/dev/en/latest/standards/review/#r-maint))
* [ ] __PASS__: The change sufficiently improves test coverage, or the change is trivial enough that it does not require tests.
* [ ] __PASS__: The change does not sufficiently improve test coverage, but special circumstances make it important to accept the change anyway.
* [ ] __ISSUE__: The change does not sufficiently improve test coverage.
* [ ] __COMMENTS__: *(optional)*
* Documentation ([`r-doc`](https://docs.civicrm.org/dev/en/latest/standards/review/#r-doc))
* [ ] __PASS__: There are relevant updates for the documentation, or the changes do not require documentation.
* [ ] __ISSUE__: The user documentation should be updated.
* [ ] __ISSUE__: The administrator documentation should be updated.
* [ ] __ISSUE__: The developer documentation should be updated.
* [ ] __COMMENTS__: *(optional)*
* [ ] __COMMENTS__: <!-- optional -->
docs/standards/review/template-word-1.0.md
+ 3
− 3
View file @ 38a1117b
......@@ -7,6 +7,6 @@
* ([`r-code`](https://docs.civicrm.org/dev/en/latest/standards/review/#r-code)) __Undecided__
* ([`r-doc`](https://docs.civicrm.org/dev/en/latest/standards/review/#r-doc)) __Undecided__
* ([`r-maint`](https://docs.civicrm.org/dev/en/latest/standards/review/#r-maint)) __Undecided__
* ([`r-run`](https://docs.civicrm.org/dev/en/latest/standards/review/#r-run)) __Undecided__: (*Describe...*)
* ([`r-user`](https://docs.civicrm.org/dev/en/latest/standards/review/#r-user)) __Undecided__: (*Describe...*)
* ([`r-tech`](https://docs.civicrm.org/dev/en/latest/standards/review/#r-tech)) __Undecided__: (*Describe...*)
* ([`r-run`](https://docs.civicrm.org/dev/en/latest/standards/review/#r-run)) __Undecided__: <!-- Describe -->
* ([`r-user`](https://docs.civicrm.org/dev/en/latest/standards/review/#r-user)) __Undecided__: <!-- Describe -->
* ([`r-tech`](https://docs.civicrm.org/dev/en/latest/standards/review/#r-tech)) __Undecided__: <!-- Describe -->
0% or .
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment