Definition of done: Difference between revisions

From Delft Solutions
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m (Fix format)
(clarify ambiguous requirements with conclusions from the retrospective meeting d.d. 28-06-2024)
 
Line 7: Line 7:
== Quality ==
== Quality ==


In order to keep the code maintainable and relatively bug-free, as well as broaden the amount of people that know about a certain feature's implementation, we expect PRs to be peer-reviewed and senior-reviewed (someone senior to the project, or, if not available, senior in the company).
In order to keep the code maintainable and relatively bug-free, as well as broaden the amount of people that know about a certain feature's implementation, we expect PRs to be peer-reviewed by one other person. Ideally, this would be someone senior who knows more about the project than you do; or if you know the most, a more experienced person in the company. If you're written this feature using pair-programming, no code review after the fact is required.  


Any automated analysis that runs on a project should also be without errors. When there are warnings, it should be explained ''why'' the warning isn't resolved. Yes, some of this tooling sometimes gets it wrong, but overall they make the code more consistent in style, and it often prevents a lot of common issues.
Any automated analysis that runs on a project should also be without errors. When there are warnings, it should be explained ''why'' the warning isn't resolved. Yes, some of this tooling sometimes gets it wrong, but overall they make the code more consistent in style, and it often prevents a lot of common issues.

Latest revision as of 11:57, 30 June 2024

At Delft Solutions we aim to have a shared understanding what it takes to release an incremental update to one of our projects. Having a shared understanding of what it means to call something done also means we don't have to ask "But is it really done?" or "Hey you said it was done but I don't see it, where is it?".

Functional Requirements

These are the business requirements that emerge through conversation about a particular issue or feature, as well as the requirements listed in the issue (acceptance criteria).

Quality

In order to keep the code maintainable and relatively bug-free, as well as broaden the amount of people that know about a certain feature's implementation, we expect PRs to be peer-reviewed by one other person. Ideally, this would be someone senior who knows more about the project than you do; or if you know the most, a more experienced person in the company. If you're written this feature using pair-programming, no code review after the fact is required.

Any automated analysis that runs on a project should also be without errors. When there are warnings, it should be explained why the warning isn't resolved. Yes, some of this tooling sometimes gets it wrong, but overall they make the code more consistent in style, and it often prevents a lot of common issues.

The code must be tested. This can be a manual test or an automated test. If changes are made after the test has been performed, the test must be performed again.

Non-Functional Requirements

  • We make things better, not worse
  • Build errors and warnings must be solved or explained (and accepted)
  • Existing tests passed
  • Peer code review passed
  • Deployed (if applicable)