In Bitbucket, on any Pull Request, reviews are disabled after the PR is merged.
I'd like to continue to allow reviews after a PR is merged. Is this possible?
NOTE: I am not asking about requiring review approval pre-merge, though I may or may not have those requirements as well. I want post-merge reviews.
In Github, by way of comparison, it is possible to "review" a PR even after it is merged.
I tried clicking the greyed-out "review" button after merging, which obviously did nothing. If the page is reloaded the "review" button is entirely gone.
I have been in contact with a wonderful Product Manager at Atlassian, and he let me know that this used to be an accidental "feature" of BitBucket, which they considered a bug, and fixed as of several months ago. This is why people have a memory of post-merge reviews, which seem to no longer be possible (because, they indeed are no longer possible).
He explained that once they "fixed" the bug they heard from users who had built workflows around it, and wanted the "bug/feature" back.
There is a public issue tracker for this if you are interested in weighing in on it!
https://jira.atlassian.com/browse/BCLOUD-22396
Atlassian has not yet decided if/when/how they will bring the "bug/feature" back.
Related
I have used a few code review programs. I am now using pull requests in Bitbucket. I am expecting a certain process:
Create review (ie pull request)
Comments are added by reviewers. ( am used to a graded system where someone can mark the change as a bug which needs to be fixed before being merged)
The review is sent back to the originator who fixes any problems that are marked
(!!)The originator pushes their changes to their branch and then the code review is done again by all reviewers who then approve or reject the new changes.
With all things being good, the review is approved and then merged.
What I am wondering about are steps 3 and 4. There seems no grading to the comments and there seems to be no way for the originator to see quickly the comments (in some condensed format). Also, how do new changes update a pull request? Is this just missing from the Bitbucket system or is there a way to achieve this?
"there seems to be no way for the originator to see quickly the comments (in some condensed format)". Open a pull request, and look over on the right hand side. I see 3 tabs: Details / Files / Activity. Under "Activity", I can filter to "All Comments".
"how do new changes update a pull request?" When creating a pull request, you are requesting approval from your colleagues to pull code from some source branch to some target branch. So, when the source branch is updated with changes, the pull request should automatically reflect that. In other words, you shouldn't have to take any extra action.
"There seems no grading to the comments" A reviewer can check a box that says "merge not allowed until the 'issue fixed' box is checked." The repo admin has some latitude to set how strict the PR / merge policies will be, including whether approval is needed from anyone or from specific individuals.
We are migrating from an in-house tool to Jira for managing our scrum board, and we have concerns that I have been unable to resolve by searching the Internet. But you folks are smart, right? ;-)
Our current scrum board shows the usual swim lanes across state columns (for todo, progress, review, done). Each swim lane represents a user story, and has a link to (and a snippet of) the user story description in Jira. It also has a number of 'tickets' (these would be subtasks in Jira lingo) that start in 'todo' and move across to eventually end up in 'done'.
So far, Jira can do all of this, too (although creating sub-tasks is rather a lot more work in Jira than in our in-house tool). However:
When we commit code, we include a ticket ID in the commit message, and thus each ticket displays a list of commits that were done to complete that particular ticket / partial story. I haven't been able to find out how to do this in Jira -- if it's possible at all. Instead, it seems one must open a sub-task to see if there are any commits on it?
Each commit also shows its review state, which gives us an excellent overview of how close to done a ticket really is. I haven't been able to find out how to do this in Jira -- if it's possible at all. Instead, it seems one must open the sub-task, and drill down further into Fisheye(?) in order to see the review state?
In total, our tool provides a one-screen overview of the state of each user story, ticket, commit, and review state; and it's very lightweight to pull in new stories (from Jira) and add tickets. We fear that Jira is not able to provide such a one-screen overview, forcing us to open Fisheye in order to know whether a given commit has passed review.
Is it really true that Jira must be this cumbersome?
For reference, here is what a single ticket (subtask) looks like in our system:
And if you look at the whole scrum board, it's actually quite easy to get a feel for the number of commits on individual user stories and tickets, and the ratio of pending/passed/failed code reviews:
I agree with your fears when you say
We fear that Jira is not able to provide such a one-screen overview
In my experience (7+ years with Jira/Agile) I've not seen a such condensed view of information about a sigle user story even on a swimlane with relative cards.
Also in the Atlassian marketplace there seems to be no good plugin to solve your issue, even partially.
To make such move from your in-house tool to Jira retaining all you have there, I fear you should develop a custom Plug-in using Jira SDK to integrate with the agile boards.
It may be enough to start by developing a custom field to show what you need from a "ticket" (ie sub-issue) and trying to insert it into one of the three "slots" available for cards (I mean Rapidboard card layout configuration screen).
If you wanna try, start from here.
Another option to create a new custom field would be the Adaptavist Scriptrunner plugin. It will ease the building of custom fields: your new field can be written also in Groovy rather than plain Java. I've used it to build an extended status custom field (just to give the user an immediate big picture of it) that informs him in plain english and with stylish css colors why an issue is blocked or anything else relevant, getting data from other fields or linked issues that are not immediately visible to the user. IMHO, it is very similar to your problem.
I would like to check in code after a code review is approved. I came across this stack about creating code reviews and checking in, but my question is a little different.
My issue is that I want to create a code review; however, I do not want to check in the code until it is approved. That limits me from being able to start another code review with removing related work items. What I would like to do is create code reviews and check in from the code review tab in the Team Explorer
Is that possible? It is the same principle as creating a code review after the check in, but with Code reviews and checking in. I do not want to go to pending changes and check in there because I may have removed the related items. But I do want a check in to be tied to my code review.
Unfortunately, there is no "proper" way to do what you are trying to do. You could have your working directory on a shared drive and just notify your reviewer when you are ready for them to start their review process, but that side-steps the accountability by not having each development/review iteration officially logged within TFS. This means you should check in your work and let the reviewer do their job, then continue on in that fashion to make any changes requested by the reviewer, check in, and get another code-review.
For completeness I will mention my suggestion from my comments here as well.
My suggestion would be to create a self-contained, short-lived development branch where you will do your development and have your code reviewed. Then once the development and reviewing has been completed to satisfaction, that branch can be merged back up and destroyed. This provides a much cleaner and safer approach. 1) It reduces the clutter in the history within TFS. 2) It prevents multiple unnecessary automated builds/tests/etc... from being triggered.
In your comment you suggest that this changes the "structure of your branching methods". I don't see how doing this changes anything in any way that matters. Your merge would be just like your final development check-in except that by this time all reviews have been completed and you are performing a single, clean check-in. It will still contain all of your check-in and review information, however instead of a cluttered chain of check-ins, you will have a single collapsed node which contains every single thing that was done for that particular task.
I would check with your manager, your code reviewer and/or anyone you have that is in charge of TFS and creating/maintaining your TFS policy. This approach really doesn't change anything in regard to how the rest of your process works. You would have simply abstracted your development cycle to a self-contained environment. The second you perform your merge you are right back into your normal process as you have it now.
Okay, so for documentation purposes. I did not fully understand the shelving that TFS allow me to do. After reading Shelve and Unshelve Pending Changes, it makes more sense to me. I can shelve what I am working on, unshelve the code that I have done a code review for, then check in that code. That way I can create a code review and continue working until that code review is approved. Once approved, I can go unshelve the changes and check it in.
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about programming within the scope defined in the help center.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
I have a small team of developers that use bitbucket as our git repository.
I want to know how to limit who can merge code on a pull request in bitbucket? AND/OR force at least one approval before the merge can be done. Basically I am looking to force a code review.
As of now the creator of a pull-request (and everyone else) can not only approve but also merge the code in which can be an issue for quality purposes. Thanks in advance.
Update:
Bitbucket now allows for control over push permissions, branch deletion, and history re-writing. The full management instructions are here: https://confluence.atlassian.com/bitbucket/branch-management-385912271.html
There still is not a way to force a minimum number of approvals however.
I want to know how to limit who can merge code on a pull request in bitbucket? AND/OR force at least one approval before the merge can be done. Basically I am looking to force a code review.
This functionality is not available in Bitbucket right now, but Atlassian's behind-the-firewall version of Git hosting has it.
Stash allows you to:
limit who can change branches
enforce a minimum number of approvals before merging pull requests (it can do a similar thing for Bamboo builds - i.e. the code must compile before it can be merged)
reset approvals if a pull request changes
It's a curious asymmetry in Atlassian's own products.
Answer from attlassian:
Mary Anthony [Atlassian Technical Writer]
Hi,
So, a repository can have branches. Within that repository, you can't
set permissions on a branch that are different from the repository.
You can set permissions on the repository that would allow developers
to fork the repository and issue pull requests against it. To
configure this:
Create a group on your account and call it "developers".
Give the group read permissions.
Add all the developers to that group.
Edit the groups on the repository and add developers.
Hope this helps.
Mary
Here it is: https://confluence.atlassian.com/display/BITBUCKET/Work+with+pull+requests?focusedCommentId=321851850#comment-321851850
In other words, you can make your dev fork the project and issue pull requests from their fork. In your project , you can set the project to disallow public fork. I assume that they will fork the project and it will be hidden. That said, they will be able to issue pull request and edit their own repository. It looks quite akward but it should work.
I don't have the feeling that there is a good way to handle permissions on github/bitbucket and so on.
edit
Not really a solution to enforce it but still quite valid. Since approval of pull-request is quite optional. Doesn't mean that you're screwed and in fact, if I were you. I wouldn't try to enforce a system. The reality is that code review is important. Pull request makes it easier to review sets of commits.
I worked many months being the only one in my team to create/approve pull requests. The team in which I worked decided that pull requests was a waste of time and I guess that none of them did code review until I left. Last thing I heard is that my team mate is currently refactoring my code because he has no idea how it works.
What I'm trying to say is that code review shouldn't be enforced and your team should see it as a quite important thing to do. Each member of your team should work together and code review each others on their own. By doing code review, they will have the right to deny code that they feel is "ugly" or should be designed in a different way. Each member get to stay updated on what other devs are working and may not have much problem switching on anybody's work in case of illness, departure or death!
Enforcing the process in the system could be good from a manager's point of view. But I believe that having approval as optional isn't bad either. And then, the manager's job will be to check the merged pull request for the pull request with 1 or less approved person. Check who merged the pull request and who approved. Find someone to review the code anyway.
On the other hand, if a pull request is hanging around forever and nobody is reviewing it. It's the dev task to ask a mate to review it.
We recently started using Team Foundation Server 2012 and are using the code-review feature to have other developers review code changes. It seems to work great; however, as a project lead I would like to be able to see that a given changeset has been reviewed by someone else.
For example, say Developer Bob makes changes and requests a review on those changes. This generates a shelveset for the changes and creates a code-review work item for the requested review. Developer Alice reviews the changes, makes some comments, and finishes the review. Bob incorporates Alice's suggestions and checks in the changeset.
As a project lead, I search for changesets and see that Bob checked in changeset 123. If I look at this changeset, there is an associated work item for the task Bob was working on, but no indication that the changeset was reviewed by anyone else.
If I look at code-review work items, I can find the things that have been reviewed and see the comments. This is cumbersome as I have to sift through work items and find the one that happens to be related.
How can I tell from a given changeset that it was reviewed, as well as see the review comments?
Changesets can be linked to any kind of Work Item, including Code Reviews. When you request a review on a set of pending changes, they are automatically associated to the new review Work Item. When you double click on the changeset you should be able to see under Related Work Items something like this:
In this case there were 2 reviews for this changeset, the second one was automatically there when it was requested. The first one had to be manually linked, just like the Task.
If you double click on the review item, you can see all the comments.
Tip: If you want to do a review post-checkin: go to the History view --> double click on the changeset --> Actions --> Request Review.
Tip2: It is a bit annoying that you have to manually check that each changeset has a review. If lack of review is really a problem for your team, I would suggest setting up a check-in policy.
You can make queries searching for code review work items and you will find associated changesets on the field Associated Context (Changeset id or Shelveset Name)
Inside the Code Review, you can check the changeset via the link at the top of the work item view.
Of course, there is another option that is querying directly to TFS Database (Warehouse) but it's tricky and requires access to that database and knowledge on the schema.
from work item history u can check out all the change sets ....changeset was reviewed by anyone else this functionality TFS does Not provide!
may be i have lost Something but i don't see any answer regarding to change set that is was reviewed.
but you can check the change through (history , and sort the source control by date ).
good luck!