🔥 From Async to Create sharing. These are large withdrawals that lead to the worst … | By engineering jobs and talents

shared

Do large withdrawal requests lead to a worse quality examination? Is the smallest always a better solution? What about the alternative in the form of patterns of creating participation? Let’s take a look at these topics and try to find answers.

Click Enter or click to view the image in full size

Based on discussions from the JobandTalent tribe

Reviews of simultaneous code

What is the idea behind the simultaneous code reviews? We may think of major intentions related to each other:

• quality assurance ,
• Getting human rule, that is, the presence of someone looks at the code and enter into a meaningful conversation with this person about how to improve it.

How do you look in practice?

ASYNC icon review in practice: late Ping-Pong process

Consider the following example.

Two people, Plate and Mike, working on different things.

BELATE raises a withdrawal request and asks MIKE for review. He says well, but he works on something else at that particular moment, leaving him later. Once you send the request, it is on something else – it has meetings or may be verified as a request to withdraw from another person.

The days pass and to go through, who has not received any notes from Mike yet, asking him again. Then it looks at its symbol and returns with some standard notes. At this stage, both were out of context, as they were making many different things along the way.

When Berat is implementing Mike’s comments, it turned out that he had something else in mind. She needs to correct what she just did. It goes without saying, as soon as you learn about it, she was already focusing on something else.

Click Enter or click to view the image in full size

As we see, there is a lot of back and forth here. Until the request for clouds is approved and integrated, we face what Dragan Stepanovic called “Late Ping Bong” in his article here.

The thing related to large clouds requests

When looking at the same ticket perspective, there is a lot of time spent, if not lost, when waiting. If the ticket that is reviewed is large in its scope, there is also, as it argues Stepanović, a major risk of disengagement and a decrease in quality.

In addition, the Great PRS also poses a danger to:

• Errors after merging and
• Spend a long time searching for the source of error (“Needle in the straw pile”).

Do you ask for small clouds an answer? Yes and no

Small cloud requests are usually a solution that will result in much better statistics.

This is true for these factors:

• Less time to create a request,
• Faster reactions (it is easier to find time for review),
• More post during review,
• And discovery earlier in insects.

And everything is good, except for one thing.

productivity.

Why this? Dragan Stepanovic claims that with small PRS, more time is spent on each lines of the code (unlike the big PRS where people need more time to review the entire order).

As a result, more waste may accumulate in the system, and more time may be needed to pay the same amount of code.

Well, but perhaps more time he spends in requests is a reasonable comparison and we get a better symbol quality instead?

To answer this question, we need to talk about two things.

Withdrawal requests for the costs of transactions and inventory size

The cost of the transaction It is the cost of transferring something from one place to another. It can be either a commodity in a warehouse, or the work burden has been transferred between two people.

What is the difference that it causes in practice? Let’s look at the following example.

If it takes one second unit test, I will run it all the time. But if it takes an hour, I will not run them often.

The costs of higher transactions are equal to the largest inventory (or more accumulation of tickets), because they do not deserve to move things in smaller batches.

If we want to transfer tasks sooner, we will have to reduce the cost of the transaction. Otherwise, the tasks of assembly will begin, and therefore, slow us down.

… which is likely to make us avoid large cloud requests. These come with more work under progress, an additional time to switch context, and reduce productivity after all.

The most dangerous side effects of the above situation is that it makes all concerned feel very productive, although the process is not.

You must: must: must: the solution that we need:

• Reducing the size of the batch (smaller parts of the code that is released),
• Reducing the cost of the transaction,
• And reduce the time of review (both the author and references need to act much faster).

If this is not simultaneous, what?

All of these results lead us to synchronous and continuous code reviews and patterns of participation.

There are two I see a reasonable alternative:

• Programming husband,
• Ghob programming.

Participation patterns completely change the construction model in quality.

Here is how:

• They transfer people to a problem instead of a problem for people,
• They raise people about a problem instead of dividing them between them (and took additional time to reassemble the results),
• They bear collective responsibility for the product rather than dividing people into authors and critics.

In general, common construction patterns come with a set of pros and cons:

• Less delay in interactions. While people work together, they don’t need to wait,
• A shorter leadership time to get the advantages of production,
• Rolling learning rhythm,
• Last but not least, quality.

All in all, it turns out that the difference is no longer the choice between productivity and quality.

Other questions about the patterns of creating participation

A question was asked between the rear jobandtalent tribe if the marital programming will replace the need to review the code.

In my opinion, the code review is part of this style. One thing we must be careful about is to make sure that both the two persons concerned have the opportunity to be an author and reference, and to exchange these roles with each other.

There is a common concern about the implementation of common construction patterns is how to persuade management to allow the teams to work in this way?

It is fair to ask what the administration’s priority is. If they are strict about the dates of issuance, they may feel intuitively that joint creativity will slow down. The easiest solution is to present the idea and request a trial period. The fact that the other difference is programming the husband or mob may be useful as well. If your manager is very directed to data, you can always provide them with graphs, as shown in Stepanović search.

Besides, it is always good to make sure you have good cooperation practices among your team members. Directing people to this may be a challenge in itself, but it will definitely take its fruits in the long run.

conclusion

Contrary to the review of the simultaneous software instructions, Pair Programming provides problem -time problem and comes with many benefits that guarantee construction in quality. The review of large or small withdrawal requests may settle the quality of the code or the productivity of the team.

With patterns of creating participation, you do not have to choose between the previous or the last. Allow developers to play the roles of code and auditors authors, reduces the costs of transactions for work burden and enhances cooperative spirit.

🔗 Read more at: Source

Hashtags: #Async #Create #sharing #large #withdrawals #lead #worst #engineering #jobs #talents

Written by Job&Talent Engineering on 2023-02-28 21:04:00

Source Feed: Job&Talent Engineering – Medium
🔥 From Async to Create sharing. These are large withdrawals that lead to the worst … | By engineering jobs and talents

shared

Do large withdrawal requests lead to a worse quality examination? Is the smallest always a better solution? What about the alternative in the form of patterns of creating participation? Let’s take a look at these topics and try to find answers.

Click Enter or click to view the image in full size

Based on discussions from the JobandTalent tribe

Reviews of simultaneous code

What is the idea behind the simultaneous code reviews? We may think of major intentions related to each other:

• quality assurance ,
• Getting human rule, that is, the presence of someone looks at the code and enter into a meaningful conversation with this person about how to improve it.

How do you look in practice?

ASYNC icon review in practice: late Ping-Pong process

Consider the following example.

Two people, Plate and Mike, working on different things.

BELATE raises a withdrawal request and asks MIKE for review. He says well, but he works on something else at that particular moment, leaving him later. Once you send the request, it is on something else – it has meetings or may be verified as a request to withdraw from another person.

The days pass and to go through, who has not received any notes from Mike yet, asking him again. Then it looks at its symbol and returns with some standard notes. At this stage, both were out of context, as they were making many different things along the way.

When Berat is implementing Mike’s comments, it turned out that he had something else in mind. She needs to correct what she just did. It goes without saying, as soon as you learn about it, she was already focusing on something else.

Click Enter or click to view the image in full size

As we see, there is a lot of back and forth here. Until the request for clouds is approved and integrated, we face what Dragan Stepanovic called “Late Ping Bong” in his article here.

The thing related to large clouds requests

When looking at the same ticket perspective, there is a lot of time spent, if not lost, when waiting. If the ticket that is reviewed is large in its scope, there is also, as it argues Stepanović, a major risk of disengagement and a decrease in quality.

In addition, the Great PRS also poses a danger to:

• Errors after merging and
• Spend a long time searching for the source of error (“Needle in the straw pile”).

Do you ask for small clouds an answer? Yes and no

Small cloud requests are usually a solution that will result in much better statistics.

This is true for these factors:

• Less time to create a request,
• Faster reactions (it is easier to find time for review),
• More post during review,
• And discovery earlier in insects.

And everything is good, except for one thing.

productivity.

Why this? Dragan Stepanovic claims that with small PRS, more time is spent on each lines of the code (unlike the big PRS where people need more time to review the entire order).

As a result, more waste may accumulate in the system, and more time may be needed to pay the same amount of code.

Well, but perhaps more time he spends in requests is a reasonable comparison and we get a better symbol quality instead?

To answer this question, we need to talk about two things.

Withdrawal requests for the costs of transactions and inventory size

The cost of the transaction It is the cost of transferring something from one place to another. It can be either a commodity in a warehouse, or the work burden has been transferred between two people.

What is the difference that it causes in practice? Let’s look at the following example.

If it takes one second unit test, I will run it all the time. But if it takes an hour, I will not run them often.

The costs of higher transactions are equal to the largest inventory (or more accumulation of tickets), because they do not deserve to move things in smaller batches.

If we want to transfer tasks sooner, we will have to reduce the cost of the transaction. Otherwise, the tasks of assembly will begin, and therefore, slow us down.

… which is likely to make us avoid large cloud requests. These come with more work under progress, an additional time to switch context, and reduce productivity after all.

The most dangerous side effects of the above situation is that it makes all concerned feel very productive, although the process is not.

You must: must: must: the solution that we need:

• Reducing the size of the batch (smaller parts of the code that is released),
• Reducing the cost of the transaction,
• And reduce the time of review (both the author and references need to act much faster).

If this is not simultaneous, what?

All of these results lead us to synchronous and continuous code reviews and patterns of participation.

There are two I see a reasonable alternative:

• Programming husband,
• Ghob programming.

Participation patterns completely change the construction model in quality.

Here is how:

• They transfer people to a problem instead of a problem for people,
• They raise people about a problem instead of dividing them between them (and took additional time to reassemble the results),
• They bear collective responsibility for the product rather than dividing people into authors and critics.

In general, common construction patterns come with a set of pros and cons:

• Less delay in interactions. While people work together, they don’t need to wait,
• A shorter leadership time to get the advantages of production,
• Rolling learning rhythm,
• Last but not least, quality.

All in all, it turns out that the difference is no longer the choice between productivity and quality.

Other questions about the patterns of creating participation

A question was asked between the rear jobandtalent tribe if the marital programming will replace the need to review the code.

In my opinion, the code review is part of this style. One thing we must be careful about is to make sure that both the two persons concerned have the opportunity to be an author and reference, and to exchange these roles with each other.

There is a common concern about the implementation of common construction patterns is how to persuade management to allow the teams to work in this way?

It is fair to ask what the administration’s priority is. If they are strict about the dates of issuance, they may feel intuitively that joint creativity will slow down. The easiest solution is to present the idea and request a trial period. The fact that the other difference is programming the husband or mob may be useful as well. If your manager is very directed to data, you can always provide them with graphs, as shown in Stepanović search.

Besides, it is always good to make sure you have good cooperation practices among your team members. Directing people to this may be a challenge in itself, but it will definitely take its fruits in the long run.

conclusion

Contrary to the review of the simultaneous software instructions, Pair Programming provides problem -time problem and comes with many benefits that guarantee construction in quality. The review of large or small withdrawal requests may settle the quality of the code or the productivity of the team.

With patterns of creating participation, you do not have to choose between the previous or the last. Allow developers to play the roles of code and auditors authors, reduces the costs of transactions for work burden and enhances cooperative spirit.

🔗 Read more at: Source

Hashtags: #Async #Create #sharing #large #withdrawals #lead #worst #engineering #jobs #talents

Authored by Job&Talent Engineering on 2023-02-28 21:04:00

From: Job&Talent Engineering – Medium