Stream Review and Colab with CodeStream
Use Cases and Deployment Scope
Our team is dedicated for development, so every day is like writing a lot of code and to maintain the quality a lot of reviews and collaborations to achieve the best, robust development environment. So earlier we were using some third party review process where we need to push the feature branch then raise pull request or merge request after that reviewers will get mails and after that review will be happened and in the end review comments etc. So it seems to be a long and futile process. For such situation CodeStream comes as a charm. It facilitate code reviews on the fly within no time, fastest peer code discussions with highlighting feature which is very useful for the later stages in the development cycle. Its a simple feedback request process which improves the whole development efficiency and productivity.
Pros
- Peer code discussions.
- CodeStream makes it possible that smaller code reviews can be initiated rather than a big cumbersome review in conventional development practice.
- Fast code reviews.
- No commits are required for those tasks which are in progress state, for review requests.
- Best part is reviewer have a screen which projects whole code with the difference so reviewer have better visualization.
- Review comments appears to be native comments.
- Inside IDE collaboration with multiple developers.
Cons
- Issues with version compatibility.
- No as many big cons yet, this tool is superb.
- No cons in support as well, it's just good.
Most Important Features
- Frequent reviews without raising PR, branch management and email conversations.
- Peer code discussions.
- Without developing the whole feature a dev can request a review every now and then which is a very important and good part of agile.
- Reviewer is having the whole IDE for review not just the code snippet with the changes it enhances the experience and lowers the chances of mistakes.
- CodeStream provides a good bonding within the team.
Return on Investment
- Productivity of the team increased.
- Lowered the chances of mistakes at the time of review.
- No corners left un-observed.
- The development cycle becomes more interactive and hence team enjoys the peer discussions and review process.
- A lot of time is been saved, no need of conventional time taking reviews procedures.
