Vous avez du mal à hiérarchiser les fonctionnalités. Comment vous assurez-vous que les revues de code sont efficacement intégrées ?

Your goals must be to produce properly working software based on your established processes. As part of the process review would be mandatory. If this is pair programming then that could be a quick exercise with tooling to also check code quality and test coverage, etc. When you are building features you estimate based on the process by which features are produced. Prioritising features over reviews is not something that would occur as they do not conflict. It's simply that features will not be delivered if the process steps have not been followed.

Start by aligning both processes! Define clear goals for each new feature, outlining its role in your product strategy. Simultaneously, establish objectives for code reviews, such as improving code quality or catching bugs early. By connecting feature goals with review objectives, you can prioritize reviews for features with the highest impact and risk. This ensures code quality doesn't suffer amidst competing priorities.

Code reviews before integration is essential to prevent possible bugs in any environment. In large projects I have worked with configured rules in the repository, which may include: - Require signed commits (e.g. GPG) - Require a pull request with 1 approving review before merging - Restrict force-pushes - Required status checks In addition, it is advisable to incorporate other tools like SonarCloud that detects possible code smells, guarantees a minimum coverage of the new code through tests (e.g. >80%) and alerts on code duplication, in order to maintain a quality standard. Each team should be clear about the integration flow, the requirements established and the tests to be performed in each of the review steps.

Include reviews as mandated steps of the workflow of building features. If you follow an approach that is implied in this question then you are making it optional. Code reviews are about training your developers to be better and also making sure code that is produced is maintainable and covers non-functional requirements. They should be mandatory and should be automated as much as possible using tooling.

Ensuring effective code review is crucial for our team's success. To achieve this, I'm a big advocate for breaking down features into smaller, bite-sized chunks. This approach makes it easier to prioritize tasks and tackle code reviews in a more manageable way. By focusing on smaller code changes, we can review code more efficiently, catch bugs earlier, and maintain high code quality without slowing down our feature development. It's all about finding that balance between quality and velocity, and I believe this incremental approach is the way to go.

Feature prioritization should not be prioritized alongside code reviews. Code reviews are part of the production of Features. Stakeholders for code reviews will be the programmers or technology owners for this functionality. Features (unless we are talking about Technology features) will have stakeholders that generally do not have an interest in code. If you do not stand up for reviews being mandated and part of the process then you are causing a problem by asking the wrong people whether they want something that they do should not need to understand. This would be akin to asking business users whether they want to use Docker or not.

Don't just track metrics - act on them. Use the data to identify bottlenecks and improve your review process. Make sure metrics drive decisions and show real impact. Leverage automation tools like static analyzers, CI/CD pipelines, and automated testing to streamline reviews and statistical bug detection. Engage stakeholders by linking review efficiency to faster, higher-quality releases. Keep it practical and impactful.

Code reviews generally refer to manual reviews. This will be an opportunity to screen if there are issues with styles, patterns or approach. I would always recommend automating the production of code quality metrics inline with code production. If there are issues with coverage, technical debt or code smells the developer can get this feedback before they even commit their code. Frequency of reviews against rate of feature deployment again suggests that code reviews are not part of the process of creating features. The review should not be optional it should be a mandated part of the process of getting features ready for deployment.

Metrics are important to show us what to focus on during code reviews, but it is ineffective to meticulously refactor code that is hidden when there are obvious problems on the surface that could put the whole project at risk. We therefore need to prioritize code that is used frequently or needs to be flexible for the future (mutability). Ensuring maintainability at such points in the source code is also crucial.

Continuous improvement is essential for ensuring that code reviews and feature prioritization are effective and adaptable to the evolving needs of the application and team dynamics. Regular Process Assessments: Conduct periodic reviews of your code review and feature prioritization processes. Gathering Team Feedback: Create channels for team members to provide feedback on the current processes. Adapting to Changes: Be willing to adapt your approach based on the feedback and the changing landscape of the project. Leveraging Automation: Use automation tools to streamline code reviews and feature prioritization. Promoting a Culture of Continuous Learning: Encourage team members to continuously improve their skills and knowledge.