Skip to content

Commit 8177f44

Browse files
author
iw-ezequiel
committed
Typos and tooling
1 parent 71486a6 commit 8177f44

File tree

1 file changed

+2
-2
lines changed

1 file changed

+2
-2
lines changed

‎quality-checks.md‎

Lines changed: 2 additions & 2 deletions
Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
@@ -59,7 +59,7 @@ We recommend tracking progress on an Engineering Quality dashboard, for example:
5959
| Code coverage | Maintainability - Universal | The proportion of the application code which is executed (in this context: during testing) | The higher the code coverage, the more thorough the testing, and therefore the higher the likelihood of detecting functional issues early | Must use SonarQube's default [rules, profiles and gateways](tools/sonarqube.md#default-quality-gates) <br/><br/> Build pipeline must fail if gateway test coverage is not met <br/><br/> For [new code](tools/sonarqube.md#definition-of-new-code), must meet coverage specified in default Sonarqube gateway. <br/> For legacy code, coverage amount can be initially lowered to deal with historic tech debt. But must have a plan for increasing coverage over time. | Current coverage is understood and checks can be conducted manually. Criteria exists for thresholds (should account for meaningful coverage, and may also account for legacy code) | [SonarQube](tools/sonarqube.md) (in conjunction with testing frameworks) | |
6060
| Duplicate code scan | Maintainability - Universal | Check whether the same code is used in multiple places | Duplicate code increases the cost and risk of making software changes and will increase exponentially over time | Must use SonarQube's default [rules, profiles and gateways](tools/sonarqube.md#default-quality-gates) <br/><br/> Build pipeline must fail if gateway is not met | Scans can be executed manually. Code reviews consider duplication of code. | [SonarQube](tools/sonarqube.md) | |
6161
| Code smells scan | Maintainability - Universal | Check whether the software code adheres to the principles, patterns and practices of writing clean code | The code is written once but read and executed many times. If the code is not clean, the cost and risk of making software changes both increase exponentially over time | Must use SonarQube's default [rules, profiles and gateways](tools/sonarqube.md#default-quality-gates) <br/><br/> Build pipeline must fail if gateway is not met | Scans can be executed manually. Code reviews consider bad code smells. | [SonarQube](tools/sonarqube.md) | [Clean Code: Smells and Heuristics](https://moderatemisbehaviour.github.io/clean-code-smells-and-heuristics/) |
62-
| Dead code scan | Maintainability - Universal | Detecting unused code and files that are not needed | Code is written once but read and executed many times. The more code you have, the greater the risk of somethign going wrong | Must use SonarQube's default [rules, profiles and gateways](tools/sonarqube.md#default-quality-gates) <br/><br/> Build pipeline must fail if gateway is not met | Scans can be executed manually. Code reviews consider presence of dead code. | | |
62+
| Dead code scan | Maintainability - Universal | Detecting unused code and files that are not needed | Code is written once but read and executed many times. The more code you have, the greater the risk of somethign going wrong | Must use SonarQube's default [rules, profiles and gateways](tools/sonarqube.md#default-quality-gates) <br/><br/> Build pipeline must fail if gateway is not met | Scans can be executed manually. Code reviews consider presence of dead code. | [SonarQube](tools/sonarqube.md) | |
6363
| Code review | Other - Universal | A second person manually checking a code change | Quality check by a human, as opposed to via a tool | Enforced & audited step within workflow. | No amber tier, given this is a fundamental practice. | TBC | [Code review guidance](./patterns/everything-as-code.md#code-review) |
64-
| Accessibility tests | Other - Universal | The practice of making applications usable by as many people as possible. | It is a regulatory requirement that our applications are accessible by as many people as possible. Catching accessibility failures up front is essential to maximise the accessibility | All services comply with the [NHS Accessibility Standard](https://service-manual.nhs.uk/accessibility). Websites are WCAG 2.1 compliant and scanned for compliance on a regular basis. Accessibility issues are well understood and documented. | Accessibility is considered as part of design. Manual scenarios are evaluated prior to release of major featurs. | | |
64+
| Accessibility tests | Other - Universal | The practice of making applications usable by as many people as possible. | It is a regulatory requirement that our applications are accessible by as many people as possible. Catching accessibility failures up front is essential to maximise the accessibility | All services comply with the [NHS Accessibility Standard](https://service-manual.nhs.uk/accessibility). Websites are WCAG 2.1 compliant and scanned for compliance on a regular basis. Accessibility issues are well understood and documented. | Accessibility is considered as part of design. Manual scenarios are evaluated prior to release of major features. | | |
6565
| Tech radar check | Other - Universal | Checking that the tools to be used are in line with organisational / team standards | To prevent the unnecessary proliferation of a wide variety of tools and technologies, which would have a negative impact on overall effectiveness | Reviewed at least every 6 months. | Has been reviewed at least in the past year. | | |

0 commit comments

Comments
 (0)