Request For Comments (RFCs)
  • Request for comments (RFC)
  • RFC 001: Matcher architecture
  • RFC 002: Archival Storage Service
  • RFC 003: Asset Access
  • RFC 004: METS Adapter
  • RFC 005: Reporting Pipeline
  • RFC 006: Reindexer architecture
  • RFC 007: Goobi Upload
  • RFC 008: API Filtering
  • RFC 009: AWS account setup
  • RFC 010: Data model
  • RFC 011: Network Architecture
  • RFC 012: API Architecture
  • RFC 013: Release & Deployment tracking
    • Deployment example
    • Version 1
  • RFC 014: Born digital workflow
  • RFC 015: How we work
    • Code Reviews
    • Shared Libraries
  • RFC 016: Holdings service
  • URL Design
  • Pipeline Tracing
  • Platform Reliability
    • CI/CD
    • Observability
    • Reliability
  • RFC 020: Locations and requesting
  • RFC 021: Data science in the pipeline
  • RFC 022: Logging
    • Logging example
  • RFC 023: Images endpoint
  • RFC 024: Library management
  • RFC 025: Tagging our Terraform resources
  • RFC 026: Relevance reporting service
  • RFC 026: Relation Embedder
  • RFC 027: Pipeline Intermediate Storage
  • RFC 029: Work state modelling
  • Pipeline merging
  • RFC 031: Relation Batcher
  • RFC 032: Calm deletion watcher
  • RFC 033: Api internal model versioning
  • RFC 034: Modelling Locations in the Catalogue API
  • RFC 035: Modelling MARC 856 "web linking entry"
  • RFC 036: Modelling holdings records
  • API faceting principles & expectations
  • Matcher versioning
  • Requesting API design
  • TEI Adapter
  • Tracking changes to the Miro data
  • How do we tell users how to find stuff?
  • Removing deleted records from (re)indexes
  • RFC 044: Tracking Patron Deletions
  • Work relationships in Sierra, part 2
    • Work relationships in Sierra
  • Born Digital in IIIF
  • Transitive hierarchies in Sierra
  • RFC 047: Changing the structure of the Catalogue API index
  • RFC 048: Concepts work plan
  • RFC 049: Changing how aggregations are retrieved by the Catalogue API
  • RFC 050: Design considerations for the concepts API
  • RFC 051: Ingesting Library of Congress concepts
  • RFC: 052: The Concepts Pipeline - phase one
  • RFC 053: Logging in Lambdas
  • RFC 054: Authoritative ids with multiple Canonical ids.
  • RFC 055: Genres as Concepts
  • RFC 055: Content API
    • Content API: articles endpoint
    • Content API: Events endpoint
    • Content API: exhibitions endpoint
    • The future of this endpoint
  • RFC 056: Prismic to Elasticsearch ETL pipeline
  • RFC 57: Relevance testing
    • Examples of rank CLI usage
  • RFC 059: Splitting the catalogue pipeline Terraform
  • RFC 060: Service health-check principles
  • RFC 060: Offsite requesting
    • Sierra locations in the Catalogue API
  • Content-api: next steps
Powered by GitBook
On this page
  1. RFC 015: How we work

Code Reviews

Code reviews are intended to ensure code changes meet a high standard and to share best practise between team members.

Code reviews should:

  • Be performed by a developer who did not write the code.

  • Require approval from:

    • one other developer in the case of project work

    • two developers (one of whom is from a different team) in the case of library changes.

  • Not block merging, i.e. changes can be requested in later PRs where that change is not critical to the purpose of the existing PR.

  • Ask for clarification where code or purpose is unclear.

  • Be polite: assume the good intent of the person making the change.

Some guidelines:

  • Nit picking is okay but should be labelled as such.

  • Code style, indentation, etc is better handled by automated linting than by code review.

  • Developers from any team can comment on any PR that they feel qualified to (it is expected that this happen).

  • The developer who opened a PR should be the one to merge it.

  • Examples of how to structure code or links to resources that clarify are helpful.

PreviousRFC 015: How we workNextShared Libraries

Last updated 10 months ago