投稿時間:2023-08-26 20:07:09 RSSフィード2023-08-26 20:00 分まとめ(10件)

カテゴリー等	サイト名等	記事タイトル・トレンドワード等	リンクURL	頻出ワード・要約等/検索ボリューム	登録日
python	Pythonタグが付けられた新着投稿 - Qiita	【備忘録】主成分分析についての整理	https://qiita.com/Popcorn_Apoo/items/06d53bd9b51510df2a33	主成分分析	2023-08-26 19:26:36
Ruby	Rubyタグが付けられた新着投稿 - Qiita	既存のRailsのwebアプリをdocker化する方法	https://qiita.com/octopus12176/items/047845bfb96e60d4c8c0	docker	2023-08-26 19:06:31
Docker	dockerタグが付けられた新着投稿 - Qiita	既存のRailsのwebアプリをdocker化する方法	https://qiita.com/octopus12176/items/047845bfb96e60d4c8c0	docker	2023-08-26 19:06:31
Ruby	Railsタグが付けられた新着投稿 - Qiita	既存のRailsのwebアプリをdocker化する方法	https://qiita.com/octopus12176/items/047845bfb96e60d4c8c0	docker	2023-08-26 19:06:31
海外TECH	MakeUseOf	Getting Started With Streamlit: A Practical Guide	https://www.makeuseof.com/getting-started-with-streamlit/	streamlit	2023-08-26 10:01:26
海外TECH	DEV Community	How to Conduct High-Quality Code Review?	https://dev.to/vladhilko/how-to-conduct-high-quality-code-review-2loo	How to Conduct High Quality Code Review OverviewIn this article we are going to declare the structure of a code review process that will help you build a product with better code quality in less time We will begin by explaining the main reasons for code reviews and the benefits they can provide to your team Next we will identify the key participants in code reviews their responsibilities and the workflow After that we will delve into a detailed discussion of the plans for the organization code authors and reviewers that will help them get the most out of code reviews and achieve excellent results Why do we need code review Code review is a process where someone other than the author s of a piece of code examines that code It is mostly used for the following reasons Minimizing mistakes and their impacts This includes making sure bugs and defects are prevented as much as possible and that the source code is of high quality Maintaining norms This involves ensuring that there are adequate tests consistency in style design and implementation Meeting requirements Based on Acceptance Criteria Improving code quality performance security Learning and sharing Both domain and coding knowledge Tracing and tracking decisions Understanding the evolution of the code and why and how changes have happened Gatekeeping Ensuring security and having an additional safety net so that a single developer cannot commit arbitrary code Finding Alternative Solutions Structure Overview ActorsFirst of all let s define the main actors of code review I would choose the following OrganizationCode AuthorCore Reviewer ResponsibilitiesLet s define their responsibilities OrganizationThe organization s responsibility is to simplify life for Code Authors and Reviewers by defining rules and processes Every question related to the code review process should have answers provided by the organization Here are examples of questions that can be raised and should have answers How to encourage team members to participate in code reviews How to resolve conflicts How to determine when a review is complete and it s okay to approve How to encourage team members to follow the process What to do if you have a strict deadline or need to merge a critical bug fix as soon as possible How to respond when someone says No during the review Who will perform code reviews How often should code reviews take place Who is responsible for assigning tickets code reviews to relevant engineers What should you do if no one wants to review your PR etc Code AuthorThe Code Author s main responsibility is to implement a high quality solution and to simplify the life of the reviewer as much as possible Code ReviewerThe Code Reviewer s main responsibility is to double check the author s work and identify improvements that the author may not have noticed FlowsLet s define the flow for each of them OrganizationThe Organization should create a document with answers to all possible questions that may arise and ensure that teams adhere to the established rules Code AuthorThere are points that every Code Author should follow Create a Pull Request PR and describe the changes to provide more context for reviewers Perform a self check and review their code before submitting it Find the best reviewer Collaborate with the Reviewer to resolve all issues and obtain approval Follow the organization s process to merge the changes Code ReviewerThere are points that every Code Reviewer should check before giving approval Ensure that the code follows business requirements Ensure that complexity has been reduced Ensure that the design is good Ensure that reliability is at the appropriate level Check that the code doesn t have any hidden risks In addition the reviewer should know how to collaborate with the author to resolve all issues Let s discuss these responsibilities and flows for each actor more precisely The Standard of Code Review Organization Wide PracticesDuring code reviews many issues can arise and we need to know how to handle them To address these problems and ensure that everyone is on the same page and at the same position the organization should create a document outlining engineering practices and rules to document and standardize the code review process This document should cover the following main points Ensure that the purpose of code reviews is clear to everyone Ensure that the Definition of Done is documented and clear to everyone This is an essential point because we need to establish boundaries We can t attain perfection so we need to define minimum rules required for a PR to be considered good enough For example the following criteria could be considered Test coverage is sufficient and correct all border cases are covered CI is green and all tests have passed Rubocop and other style linters have passed Etc Encourage team members to actively participate in code reviews Define a process for conflict resolution during code reviews P S You can read Google s process for conflict resolution here Resolving Conflicts Set clear expectations for code review turnaround times Prioritize code reviews as an essential task Leverage code reviews as opportunities for knowledge sharing and learning Encourage reviewing code in unfamiliar areas to promote cross functional knowledge Continuously monitor and improve the code review process Recognize and reward those with a track record of providing quality feedback Conduct regular code review sessions to discuss broader trends or issues that arise during the review process Encourage authors to seek feedback during development before submitting a formal code review Ensure that you have proper processes in place to speed up reviews P S Learn more about how Google accelerates reviews here Fast Review Determine how to handle emergenciesP S Learn more about how Google handles emergencies here Emergencies Here s the full document from the Google team outlining their practices Google Engineering Practices Documentation Code AuthorYour goal as an author of code seeking review is to simplify the reviewer s life as much as possible You are the one in need of the review and who should receive the review not the reviewer who wishes to spend their time reviewing your code Therefore ensure that you do not compel them to perform tasks that you could handle yourself There are steps that every Code Author should follow Create a Pull Request PR and describe the changes to provide more context for reviewers Perform a self check and review your code before submitting it Find the best reviewer Collaborate with the Reviewer to resolve all issues and obtain approval Follow the organization s process to merge the changes Providing Context for ReviewersEnsure that you include a proper title description any screenshots relevant links configuration changes etc in the PR P S You can read Google s requirements for the description here Google PR Description Guidelines Make sure to add a very clear reason for why you re making these changesAchieving code perfection is challenging because every code change introduces a risk of breaking something Without code there s no risk Therefore it s crucial to ensure that there are no alternative solutions to the problem If you only describe the code changes without providing the reason you re depriving the reviewer of the opportunity to suggest a completely different solution to the problem While the reason may be clear to you keep in mind that reviewers may not have your context so it s essential to add it Even if you and your reviewers currently understand the reason consider adding it for historical purposes In a few years you may forget the initial rationale making it much harder to replace or refactor the solution For example if someone later introduces a new global solution that could solve the problem more efficiently they might struggle to replace the code because they expected your code to perform additional functions Take notes on any questions or concerns about the change to discuss them during the review Identify any potential performance security or scalability concerns and note them for discussion during the review Avoid attempting to sneak something past reviewers highlight questionable elements instead Consider the impact of the change on other parts of the system and express your concerns to others Provide context for your design choices by explaining why you chose a particular approach If there are any alternative solutions that were considered and why they were not chosen briefly mention them Self Check Review Your Code Before SubmittingBefore submitting a PR thoroughly test your changes locally to identify and address any obvious issues Write automated unit tests to validate the functionality Double check for spelling mistakes Perform code cleanup removing comments todos and unnecessary artifacts Confirm that the code passes all tests including unit integration and system tests Review the code to ensure it aligns with the project s coding standards team guidelines and best practices Maintain consistency with the overall project design and architecture Write or update documentation for the changes if required Keep your code changes concise and focused Avoid overwhelming reviewers with extensive code in a single review session It has been proven that we get more value from code reviews when the PR is smaller rather than big If you are struggling to keep them small try pairing with a teammate or engineers from other teams P S You can read about why Google prefers to keep PRs small here Google Engineering Practices Finding the Best ReviewerWho to Choose Someone capable of responding to your review within a reasonable period of time Someone who can provide the most thorough and accurate review for the piece of code you are writing Look for reviewers who have expertise in the domain or specific functionality related to your code changes Reviewers who have been involved in previous discussions or decisions related to the code you are changing may have valuable historical context Tools to find Check the codeowners file Use git blame to identify potential reviewers Document which teams are responsible for specific areas to facilitate reviewer selection CollaborationApproach the review process with an open mind and be willing to learn from and collaborate with other team members Address all the feedback received including any concerns or questions raised Don t dismiss or resolve a comment without explanation Every comment is valid as a code author even if you feel the comment isn t relevant please address it so the reviewer can understand the context and why you ve done something in a certain way Seek feedback from other team members if you are unsure about the changes If you re unsure about a review comment or suggestion don t hesitate to ask for clarification Don t take it personally It s the code under review not you View each review as a chance to learn and grow as a developer Embrace feedback as a path to improvement Be open to new suggested approaches even if you consider them not too important it s a good opportunity to learn a new way of doing things Do not make every change that is suggested if you still believe your approach is better Have a conversation and agree with the reviewer if possible Treat everyone s opinion the same regardless of seniority Ensure you don t apply a change if someone senior told you to do so without understanding the reasons Take ownership of your code and its quality Be accountable for the changes you make Ensure that all code review discussions comments and decisions are documented within the code review platform This creates a historical record and helps other team members understand the rationale behind the code changes Create a positive and collaborative atmosphere by expressing your gratitude to the reviewerGood Thank you Good Nice catch Good Thanks for pointing that out Good Thanks for taking the time to review After ReviewExpress GratitudeCode reviews are in large part about having others watch your back Don t hesitate to express your gratitude with a simple Thank you once the review is completed If you re new to code reviews take a moment to reflect on what went well and what didn t Approval Checks Ensure that you have received enough approvals for your code changes If you ve made changes to unfamiliar areas ensure you ve received approval from the code owner Testing and QA Ensure that your ticket will be tested by Quality Assurance QA Provide clear and comprehensive descriptions of all places you ve modified in the ticket description Continuous Integration CI Verify that the CI pipeline has successfully passed for your code changes Confirm that the main branch s CI pipeline is not failing Confirm that it s an appropriate time to merge your changes Not too late or too early to ensure support if issues arise Not during holidaysEnsure that you do not merge code during the process of fixing critical issues to avoid additional problems Merge the approved code changes into the main branch Post Merge Checks Ensure that the main branch s CI pipeline remains green after merging your changes Verify that the code changes are functioning as expected in the production environment Keep an eye on monitoring tools to promptly address any issues that may arise due to your code changes Review and update documentation such as README files API documentation or user guides to reflect any changes made in the code Celebrate ReviewerThe main goal and priority of a review are Reduce the risk of breaking existing logic and introducing new bugs Avoid complicating the lives of other programmers in the future We can split the reviewer s task into two parts Hard Skills What Do Code Reviewers Look For Meeting business requirements based on Acceptance Criteria Reduce Complexity Style Consistency Readability Improve Design Maintainability Testability Stability Reusability Improve Reliability Performance Security Mitigate RisksSoft Skills How should Code Reviewers behave to address the problems they find CollaborationRespectful CommentsSo if your code doesn t break anything and simplifies the lives of other developers it s okay to approve it Below we will discuss the main points on how to achieve this Hard Skills What Do Code Reviewers Look For Code reviewers should consider the following points Meeting business requirementsReduce ComplexityImprove DesignImprove ReliabilityMitigate Risks Meeting business requirementsIf the author hasn t implemented what should be done according to the business requirements then all other reviews will be a waste of time So your priority here is to identify this issue as soon as possible Review any documentation or design specifications related to the change JIRA story design document etc and compare them with the author s description of the changes Based on the requirements prepare a list of items that should have been covered in the changes Review Functionality Based on Acceptance CriteriaDo we really need it Does the change make sense Does it have a good description What problem do we want to solve Is the business logic correct Are the Acceptance Criteria satisfied Are there any potential edge cases or scenarios not covered by the acceptance criteria that should be considered Does the code behave as the author likely intended Review Usability and User ExperienceAre error messages clear and user friendly Does the UI gracefully handle unexpected errors or input Does the UI support multiple languages and locales Does the UI provide a good user experience on mobile devices Reduce ComplexityIf you can t understand the code it s very likely that other developers won t either So you re also helping future developers understand this code when you ask the developer to clarify it Too complex usually means can t be understood quickly by code readers It can also mean developers are likely to introduce bugs when they try to call or modify this code ComplexityCould the code be made simpler Can the solution be simplified Does similar functionality already exist in the codebase If yes why isn t it reused Is the PR more complex than it should be Could it be split into parts Could some parts be moved to another ticket Are there redundant or outdated comments Is there any commented out code Is the developer not implementing things they might need in the future but don t need now ReadabilityWould another developer be able to easily understand and use this code when they come across it in the future Does your code tell the story clearly Or does it clearly explain the business flow Did the developer choose clear names for variables classes methods etc Are there excessive abbreviations or cryptic variable names that could be made more descriptive StyleDoes the code follow the company defined style guides Is code formatting consistent including indentation spacing and line breaks ConsistencyIs there a consistent approach to coding within your company s rules Does the code change adhere to the project s coding standards and best practices Are naming conventions consistent with the project s coding standards Improve DesignIn fact reviewing the rest of the PR might be a waste of time because if the design problems are significant enough a lot of the other code under review is going to disappear and not matter anyway DesignIs the code well designed and appropriate for your system Are there any best practices design patterns or language specific patterns that could substantially improve this code Can we improve the code via design patterns Does this code adhere to Design Principles KISS SOLID YAGNI etc Have you found any code smells in the code Is the code well designed Will it be easy to change the code for other developers in the future Are architectural or major design changes approved by a Principal or an Architect Are you sure that no new unit gem architecture etc is introduced into the codebase without the prior approval process tech leadership meeting or at least being discussed with a Principal Improve ReliabilityThis step allows you to identify any potential performance security or scalability concerns and discuss them with the author Perfomance Do you think this code change will negatively impact system performance Do you see potential for significant code performance improvement Are database queries optimized for efficiency with proper use of indexes and joins Are N query problems addressed by using eager loading where needed Are computationally expensive tasks offloaded to background jobs preventing slow responses or request timeouts for users Does this code utilize memoization for methods that are called multiple times SecurityWhich user roles are expected to gain access to the added resources Are passwords securely stored using strong encryption such as bcrypt Are file uploads properly validated restricted to safe file types and securely stored Does this code change expose any sensitive information such as API keys passwords or usernames Is sensitive data like user data or credit card information securely handled and stored Are user inputs validated and sanitized to prevent SQL injection and XSS attacks Are authorization and authentication correctly implemented Are third party libraries and gems regularly reviewed for known security vulnerabilities Are API endpoints authenticated and authorized correctly Are you sure that users cannot access API resources that do not belong to them Risk ManagementThe main goal of this step is to mitigate the risk and do everything you can to reduce the chances of breaking the product Preemptively draw attention to any areas of the code where you feel unsure Determine the appropriate level of review needed based on the scope and impact of the code change How risky is the PR Is the feature actively used or is it hidden and hasn t been realized yet How critical is it Is there any impact on other domains Could the owner of the PR lack knowledge about how their work might impact other domains or code How experienced is the PR author Do you need to spend extra time re checking the author s code or can you trust it Make a list of potential risks or issues that could arise from this change It might be helpful to try running the code locally to ensure there are no issues TestsReview any tests included with the code change to verify they adequately cover the functionality and edge cases Is test coverage sufficient and correct Are all border cases covered Do the code changes have appropriate unit tests Is the code designed to be easily testable Have automated tests been added or relevant ones updated to cover the new functionality Do the existing tests reasonably cover the code change including unit integration and system tests Are there additional test cases inputs or edge cases that should be considered Logic Errors and BugsCan you envision any use cases in which the code does not behave as intended Can you identify any inputs or external events that could potentially break the code Ensure a failing test is written if the change is for a bug fix Soft Skills How should Code Reviewers behave to address the problems they find CollaborationBe willing to collaborate with the author to resolve any issues or concerns that arise during the review process Seek continuous improvement not perfection Consider using pair programming as an alternative or supplement to code reviews Resolve conflicting opinions in a timely manner don t let a PR sit around due to disagreement Allocate time for code reviews everyone really appreciates reviews You get to know the people and the codebase too Articulate your intention behind the feedback suggestion vs request for a change vs improvement that can be done in a different ticket Keep all the discussion online If you contacted the reviewer by chat or email bring relevant comments online Be kind and empathetic Reply within a reasonable timeframe Avoid Gold Plating Yes we strive for code excellence but at some point we have to be pragmatic create a refactor ticket and ship code If you review only certain files that are part of a larger change or only certain aspects of the PR such as the high level design privacy or security implications etc note in a comment what you reviewed Discuss in personIf there is a disagreement have a quick in person video IM chat to sort out what is going on it s much easier to address all the little Oh I didn t know s in a single face to face instead of back and forth via e mail with long delays “In person doubly applies if you are disagreeing with another reviewer And please make sure to record the outcomes on the review Find an endIf you like things neat it s tempting to go over a code review over and over until it s perfect dragging it out for longer than necessary It s soul deadening for the recipient though Keep in mind that “LGTM does not mean “I vouch my immortal soul this will never fail but “looks good to me If it looks good move on That doesn t mean you shouldn t be thorough It s a judgment call And if there are bigger refactorings to be done move them to a new PR Always ask yourself if this decision really matters in the long run or if you re enforcing a subjective preference How to provide respectful and professional feedback Use we instead of you Bad Why do you add this function Good Why do you think we should add this function Use questions instead of commands or ordersBad We need tests for this Good I don t see any unit tests for this function Could we add some test cases to ensure it behaves as expected under various conditions Suggest rather than instructBad Change the variable name to total price Good Consider changing the variable name to total price It might make the code more descriptive Good Perhaps it would be better to rename the variable as total price for improved code clarity If you add something not very important feel free to prefix it with something like Nit to let the author know that it s just a point of polish that they could choose to ignoreBad The formatting here is inconsistent Good Nit I noticed a minor inconsistency in the formatting Could we align the indentation for consistency Good Optional I noticed a minor inconsistency in the formatting Could we align the indentation for consistency Good FYI I noticed a minor inconsistency in the formatting Aligning the indentation for consistency is something to consider This makes the reviewer s intent explicit and helps authors prioritize the importance of different comments It also helps prevent misunderstandings For instance without comment labels authors might interpret all comments as mandatory even if some are intended to be purely informational or optional Don t be afraid to ask questions about how or why a thing works Good Could you provide some context on why you decided to use this specific algorithm instead of a more straightforward approach Keep it light hearted and use emojisGood What do you think about this approach But I m not sure if it works Try to find positives and provide positive remarksGood Great work on this feature Good Excellent job Good Well done Good Thanks for fixing it so quickly Raise concerns in a polite and constructive mannerBad This is wrong Good Maybe I m missing something but Good I might be mistaken but Good I could be wrong but Be respectful and professional in your feedback avoiding personal attacks blame or derogatory commentsBad This code is so sloppy and careless Are you even trying Bad You re making the same mistake again Bad This code is terrible Bad You clearly don t understand how this works Bad You always forget to add comments Bad How could you not see this mistake It s so obvious Bad Are you sure that software engineering is the right career path for you ConclusionTo wrap it up this article has introduced a clear code review process that can enhance code quality and speed up product development We ve talked about why code reviews matter and how they help teams We ve also pointed out who does what in code reviews and how it all works These ideas are here to support organizations code authors and reviewers in making the most of code reviews and getting excellent outcomes	2023-08-26 10:28:27
ニュース	BBC News - Home	Rail services across England hit as 20,000 staff begin strike	https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66623948?at_medium=RSS&at_campaign=KARANGA	holiday	2023-08-26 10:10:02
ニュース	BBC News - Home	Whitesnake guitarist Bernie Marsden dies after illness, aged 72	https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-66626994?at_medium=RSS&at_campaign=KARANGA	loving	2023-08-26 10:02:29
ニュース	BBC News - Home	Portsmouth: Woman released on bail after girl, 8, dies in Portsmouth	https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-66619542?at_medium=RSS&at_campaign=KARANGA	child	2023-08-26 10:27:25
ニュース	Newsweek	胸元あらわなコルセットドレス...テイラー・スウィフト、友人の結婚式で「白ドレス」姿を披露して非難殺到	https://www.newsweekjapan.jp/stories/culture/2023/08/post-102494.php	「これについて、花嫁がどう考えているかを知っていようがいまいが、安全策をとれば間違いはない中略白を着なければ、詮索好きなゲストの間で話題になることもなくなるし、何よりあなたの服装が、結婚式当日に白のドレスを着る主役として祝福されるべき花嫁から注目を奪うこともない」TheErasTourの大成功で資産は億ドル増加スウィフトは、大成功を収めているツアー「TheErasTour」のチケットが完売し、年月までの延長が決定している。	2023-08-26 19:24:00