The Create:Code Review Group is responsible for all aspects of the product categories that fall under the Code Review group of the Create stage of the DevOps lifecycle.
The following people are permanent members of the Create:Code Review Group:
| Person | Role |
|---|---|
| André Luís | Frontend Engineering Manager, Create:Source Code, Create:Code Review, Delivery & Scalability |
| Sincheol (David) Kim | Senior Backend Engineer, Create:Code Review |
| Gary Holtz | Backend Engineer, Create:Code Review |
| Kai Armstrong | Senior Product Manager, Create:Code Review |
| Kerri Miller | Staff Backend Engineer, Create:Code Review |
| Marc Shaw | Senior Backend Engineer, Create:Code Review |
| Patrick Bajao | Senior Backend Engineer, Create:Code Review |
| Phil Hughes | Staff Frontend Engineer, Create:Code Review |
| Stanislav Lashmanov | Senior Frontend Engineer, Create:Code Review |
| Thomas Randolph | Senior Frontend Engineer, Create:Code Review |
The Code Review group is responsible for the following product categories:
In general, we use the standard GitLab engineering workflow. To get in touch with the Create:Code Review team, it's best to create an issue in the relevant project (typically GitLab) and add the ~"group::code review" label, along with any other appropriate labels (~devops::create, ~section::dev). Then, feel free to ping the relevant Product Manager and/or Engineering Manager as listed above.
For more urgent items, feel free to use #g_create_code_review on Slack.
Work on the GitLab VS Code Extension follows a simplified development process. Learn more about it by looking at CONTRIBUTING.md.
Take a look at the features we support per category here.
The metrics by which we measure the success of the Code Review category are aligned with our goals for code review, specifically ease of use, love-ability, and efficiency.
Our primary metric is: reducing the duration of the Code Review. This is measured as the duration from the first merge request version to merged.
Secondary metrics of success act as support for the primary metric, helping build a more complete picture of how successful the category is.
Once in a while, we conduct UX scorecards to track the user experience through various heuristics — see all UX scorecards for Code Review. At the Create stage level, we conduct usability benchmarking studies.
Right now we're focused on measuring and improving perceived performance: “how fast, responsive, and reliable a website feels to its users. The perception of how well a site is performing can have more impact on the user experience that the actual load and response times.” Perceived performance is not only technical performance (i.e. load and response times), but also user performance (i.e. efficiency in completing tasks), and can be formulated as:
perceived performance = f(expected performance, UX, actual performance)
experience = f(perceived performance, task completion)
(Sisense↗) We also track our backlog of issues, including past due security and infradev issues, and total open System Usability Scale (SUS) impacting issues and bugs.
(Sisense↗) MR Type labels help us report what we're working on to industry analysts in a way that's consistent across the engineering department. The dashboard below shows the trend of MR Types over time and a list of merged MRs.
(Sisense↗) Flaky test are problematic for many reasons.
In addition to the above dashboard, here are search links to ensure our MRs and Issues have the correct types:
The Code Review group believes it's important that team members are empowered to explore and experiment with areas of the product that interest them. Sometimes, the best way to get the conversation started is with a merge request.
In order to better provide opportunities for team members to pursue interest areas, engineers are encouraged to reserve about 10% of their scheduled capacity.
If you're choosing to work in these areas or explore new ideas, there's a few ground rules to make sure we're all on the same page:
It can be hard to figure out where to get started, so here's a handy list of places you might look for inspiration:
gitlab-org issue list - filter this to issues with labels you're interested inWhenever possible, we prefer to communicate asynchronously using issues, merge requests, and Slack. However, face-to-face meetings are useful to establish personal connection and to address items that would be more efficiently discussed synchronously such as blockers.
We record our meetings and upload them to the Create Code Review Playlist on GitLab Unfiltered.
This is a chance for all members of the Code Review Group to meet to discuss current priorities, blockers, planning, and discuss the middle of milestone check-in.
The agenda for this meeting is set in advance and anyone can contribute topics. If there are no items on the agenda 30 minutes before the meeting is scheduled to start, we cancel the meeting.
This meeting is focused on collaboration between UX and PM, though all are welcome to attend and contribute.
This meeting is for discussing new performance topics, project proposals, and ongoing performance work or concerns.
The catch-all issue includes the agenda, issue board, and goals.
Weekly calls between the product manager and engineering managers (frontend and backend) are listed in the "Code Review Group" calendar. Everyone is welcome to join and these calls are used to discuss any roadblocks, concerns, status updates, deliverables, or other thoughts that impact the group. Every 2 weeks (in the middle of a release), a mid-milestone check-in occurs, to report on the current status of ~"Deliverable"s. Monthly calls occurs under the same calendar where the entire group is encouraged to join, in order to highlight accomplishments/improvements, discuss future iterations, review retrospective concerns and action items, and any other general items that impact the group.
You are encouraged to work as closely as needed with stable counterparts outside of the PM. We specifically include quality engineering and application security counterparts prior to a release kickoff and as-needed during code reviews or issue concerns.
Quality engineering is included in our workflow via the Quad Planning Process.
Application Security will be involved in our workflow at the same time that kickoff emails are sent to the team, so that they are able to review the upcoming milestone work, and notate any concerns or potential risks that we should be aware of.
Since we support such a large feature set, our team often reviews community contributions from the wider GitLab community. You're encouraged to give each contributor our version of "white glove treatment". Providing recognition for their donated time, giving exceedingly helpful reviews, and encouraging them in their contribution are all excellent ways to build a sense of community. If you don't have time to respond to a ping for a review or suggestion, please quickly let the person who pinged you know so they can ping someone else.
For tips, tricks, or quick shell scripts that aren't "ready" or sufficient enough to add to our developer documentation or handbook, we use the Create stage wiki.
Expanding on the concept of Middle of milestone check-in:
The way we try to grasp how well we are doing according to the scheduled and committed set of Deliverables is simply trying to calculate the level of completeness of all of them.
We do this by tallying up:
We then compile a small report like this:
Done + Verification: 1 w1 2.27% In review: 6 w15 34.09% In dev: 6 w20 45.45% Unstarted: 3 w8 18.18% Progress: 47.73% Conclusion: ...
Progress is calculated with:
(100% * 2.27) + (80% * 34.09) + (40% * 45.45) + (0% * 18.18)
In the conclusion we write an interpretation of what this means and what we'll be doing to correct course, if needed.
The data and calcuations are available in Sisense on the Code Review Milestone Check-in dashboard.
The easiest way for engineering managers, product managers, and other stakeholders to get a high-level overview of the status of all issues in the current milestone, or all issues assigned to specific person, is through the Development issue board, which has columns for each of the workflow labels described on Engineering Workflow handbook page under Updating Issues Throughout Development.
As owners of the issues assigned to them, engineers are expected to keep the workflow labels on their issues up to date, either by manually assigning the new label, or by dragging the issue from one column on the board to the next.
The groups in the Create stage conduct asynchronous standups in the #g_create_standup channel 3 times a week, on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday.
The goal is to support the members of these groups in connecting at a personal level, not to check in on people's progress or replace any existing processes to communicate status or ask for help, and the questions are written with that in mind:
For more background, see the Async standup feedback issue on the Create stage issue tracker.
Our team is encouraged to post links to their deliverable issues or merge requests when they are mentioned in relation to the second question. This helps other team members to understand what others are working on, and in the case that they come across something similar in the future, they have a good reference point.
We have 1 regularly scheduled "Per Milestone" retrospective, and can have ad-hoc "Per Feature" retrospectives more focused at analyzing a specific case, usually looking into the Iteration approach.
The Create:Code Review group conducts monthly retrospectives in GitLab issues. These include the backend team, plus any people from frontend, UX, and PM who have worked with that team during the release being retrospected.
These are confidential during the initial discussion, then made public in time for each month's GitLab retrospective. For more information, see team retrospectives.
If a particular issue, feature, or other sort of project turns into a particularly useful learning experience, we may hold a synchronous or asynchronous retrospective to learn from it. If you feel like something you're working on deserves a retrospective:
All feedback from the retrospective should ultimately end up in the issue for reference purposes.
Even though the topic of Merge Request falls under Code Review, the code powering the Merge Request Report Widgets (see Working Group) is written and maintained by a larger group.
Please refer to the List of DRIs for communication and troubleshooting purposes relating to these Widgets.