@khester/create-dynamics-app 1.1.0 → 2.1.0

package/templates/dynamics-365-starter/docs/team-standards/code-review-checklist.md

@@ -1,359 +0,0 @@
-# Code Review Checklist
-
-## Overview
-
-This checklist ensures consistent, high-quality code reviews for all Dynamics 365 consulting
-projects. Use this as a guide for both reviewers and developers preparing code for review.
-
-## Pre-Review Checklist (Developer)
-
-Before submitting a pull request, ensure all items are completed:
-
-### ✅ Code Quality
-
-- [ ] Code follows established [coding standards](./coding-standards.md)
-- [ ] No TypeScript compilation errors
-- [ ] All ESLint warnings resolved
-- [ ] Prettier formatting applied
-- [ ] No console.log statements in production code
-- [ ] No commented-out code blocks
-- [ ] Meaningful variable and function names used
-
-### ✅ Testing
-
-- [ ] Unit tests written for new functionality
-- [ ] Existing tests updated if needed
-- [ ] All tests pass locally
-- [ ] Test coverage meets minimum requirements (>80%)
-- [ ] Edge cases and error scenarios tested
-- [ ] Manual testing completed in development environment
-
-### ✅ Documentation
-
-- [ ] Public APIs documented with JSDoc
-- [ ] README updated if needed
-- [ ] Code comments added for complex logic
-- [ ] Client-specific requirements documented
-- [ ] Breaking changes documented
-
-### ✅ Security
-
-- [ ] No hardcoded secrets or credentials
-- [ ] Input validation implemented
-- [ ] Sensitive data properly handled
-- [ ] Authentication/authorization checks in place
-- [ ] SQL injection prevention (if applicable)
-
-### ✅ Performance
-
-- [ ] No obvious performance bottlenecks
-- [ ] Database queries optimized
-- [ ] Large datasets handled appropriately
-- [ ] Memory leaks prevented
-- [ ] Caching implemented where beneficial
-
-## Review Process
-
-### 1. Functional Review
-
-#### ✅ Requirements Compliance
-
-- [ ] Feature meets specified requirements
-- [ ] Client-specific needs addressed
-- [ ] Business logic correctly implemented
-- [ ] Edge cases handled appropriately
-- [ ] Error scenarios managed gracefully
-
-#### ✅ User Experience
-
-- [ ] UI/UX follows design specifications
-- [ ] Responsive design implemented
-- [ ] Accessibility standards met (WCAG 2.1 AA)
-- [ ] Loading states and feedback provided
-- [ ] Error messages are user-friendly
-
-### 2. Technical Review
-
-#### ✅ Architecture & Design
-
-- [ ] Code follows established patterns
-- [ ] Proper separation of concerns
-- [ ] Dependencies properly managed
-- [ ] Interfaces used appropriately
-- [ ] SOLID principles followed
-
-#### ✅ Entity Model Review (if applicable)
-
-- [ ] Entity inherits from BaseEntity
-- [ ] Static CRUD methods implemented
-- [ ] Validation logic included
-- [ ] Constants file created/updated
-- [ ] Field mappings correct
-- [ ] Relationships properly defined
-
-#### ✅ React Component Review (if applicable)
-
-- [ ] Functional components used
-- [ ] Props properly typed
-- [ ] Hooks used correctly
-- [ ] State management appropriate
-- [ ] Event handlers properly implemented
-- [ ] Re-renders optimized (useMemo, useCallback)
-
-#### ✅ API Integration Review (if applicable)
-
-- [ ] Service interfaces used
-- [ ] Error handling implemented
-- [ ] Logging added for debugging
-- [ ] API responses properly typed
-- [ ] Timeout handling included
-
-### 3. Code Quality Review
-
-#### ✅ Readability
-
-- [ ] Code is self-documenting
-- [ ] Consistent naming conventions
-- [ ] Appropriate code organization
-- [ ] Minimal code complexity
-- [ ] Clear function purposes
-
-#### ✅ Maintainability
-
-- [ ] Code is DRY (Don't Repeat Yourself)
-- [ ] Functions have single responsibility
-- [ ] Easy to modify and extend
-- [ ] Minimal coupling between modules
-- [ ] Configuration externalized
-
-#### ✅ Error Handling
-
-- [ ] All error scenarios handled
-- [ ] Appropriate error types used
-- [ ] User-friendly error messages
-- [ ] Logging implemented for debugging
-- [ ] Graceful degradation implemented
-
-### 4. Dynamics 365 Specific Review
-
-#### ✅ Entity Development
-
-- [ ] Field constants match D365 schema
-- [ ] Option set values correctly mapped
-- [ ] Relationships properly configured
-- [ ] Security roles considered
-- [ ] Data validation aligns with D365
-
-#### ✅ Integration Patterns
-
-- [ ] Xrm.WebApi used correctly
-- [ ] FetchXML queries optimized
-- [ ] Batch operations implemented where appropriate
-- [ ] Plugin considerations documented
-- [ ] Workflow integration points identified
-
-#### ✅ Deployment Considerations
-
-- [ ] Web resources organized properly
-- [ ] Solution dependencies documented
-- [ ] Environment-specific configurations
-- [ ] Upgrade path considered
-- [ ] Rollback procedures documented
-
-### 5. Client-Specific Review
-
-#### ✅ Customization Review
-
-- [ ] Client branding applied correctly
-- [ ] Custom fields implemented
-- [ ] Business logic matches client requirements
-- [ ] Integration points configured
-- [ ] Compliance requirements met
-
-#### ✅ Configuration Review
-
-- [ ] Environment settings correct
-- [ ] Feature flags configured
-- [ ] Client-specific constants updated
-- [ ] Deployment scripts updated
-- [ ] Documentation reflects client setup
-
-## Review Guidelines
-
-### For Reviewers
-
-#### Be Constructive
-
-- Provide specific, actionable feedback
-- Suggest improvements with examples
-- Focus on code quality, not personal preferences
-- Acknowledge good practices and improvements
-
-#### Be Thorough
-
-- Review all changes, not just the main files
-- Test the functionality locally if possible
-- Consider the broader impact of changes
-- Check for consistency with existing codebase
-
-#### Be Timely
-
-- Complete reviews within 24 hours
-- Provide status updates if review will be delayed
-- Prioritize critical or blocking changes
-- Use draft reviews for early feedback
-
-### For Developers
-
-#### Respond Professionally
-
-- Address all feedback items
-- Ask for clarification when needed
-- Explain decisions and trade-offs
-- Thank reviewers for their input
-
-#### Make Changes Incrementally
-
-- Address feedback in separate commits
-- Keep changes focused and small
-- Update tests after code changes
-- Re-request review after significant changes
-
-## Common Issues to Watch For
-
-### 🚨 Critical Issues
-
-- **Security vulnerabilities** (hardcoded secrets, injection attacks)
-- **Data corruption risks** (improper validation, transaction handling)
-- **Performance problems** (N+1 queries, memory leaks)
-- **Breaking changes** (API changes, database schema modifications)
-
-### ⚠️ Major Issues
-
-- **Logic errors** (incorrect business rules, missing edge cases)
-- **Integration failures** (API compatibility, service dependencies)
-- **Accessibility violations** (missing ARIA labels, keyboard navigation)
-- **Testing gaps** (insufficient coverage, missing test scenarios)
-
-### 📝 Minor Issues
-
-- **Code style violations** (naming conventions, formatting)
-- **Documentation gaps** (missing comments, outdated README)
-- **Optimization opportunities** (unnecessary re-renders, redundant code)
-- **Best practice deviations** (pattern inconsistencies)
-
-## Review Templates
-
-### Approval Template
-
-```
-✅ **APPROVED**
-
-**Summary:** Changes look good overall. The implementation follows our standards and meets the requirements.
-
-**Highlights:**
-- Good error handling implementation
-- Comprehensive test coverage
-- Clear documentation
-
-**Minor suggestions:**
-- Consider extracting the validation logic into a separate utility
-- Add loading state for better UX
-
-**Action Required:** None - ready to merge
-```
-
-### Request Changes Template
-
-```
-🔄 **CHANGES REQUESTED**
-
-**Summary:** Good progress, but a few issues need to be addressed before approval.
-
-**Critical Issues:**
-- [ ] Missing input validation on line 45
-- [ ] Potential memory leak in useEffect (line 23)
-
-**Suggestions:**
-- [ ] Consider using useMemo for expensive calculations
-- [ ] Extract constants to separate file for reusability
-
-**Testing Notes:**
-- All unit tests pass
-- Manual testing shows expected behavior
-
-**Action Required:** Please address the critical issues and re-request review
-```
-
-## Post-Review Process
-
-### After Approval
-
-- [ ] All feedback addressed
-- [ ] Final tests pass
-- [ ] Deployment checklist completed
-- [ ] Merge to appropriate branch
-- [ ] Update project status
-- [ ] Notify relevant stakeholders
-
-### After Merge
-
-- [ ] Verify deployment success
-- [ ] Monitor for any issues
-- [ ] Update documentation if needed
-- [ ] Close related tickets/issues
-- [ ] Document lessons learned
-
-## Escalation Process
-
-### When to Escalate
-
-- Disagreement on architectural decisions
-- Security concerns not being addressed
-- Performance issues not resolved
-- Timeline impact from review feedback
-
-### Escalation Path
-
-1. **Senior Developer** - Technical guidance and mentoring
-2. **Technical Lead** - Architecture and design decisions
-3. **Engineering Manager** - Process and timeline issues
-4. **Client Stakeholder** - Business requirement clarifications
-
-## Tools and Automation
-
-### Automated Checks
-
-- **GitHub Actions** - CI/CD pipeline validation
-- **SonarQube** - Code quality and security analysis
-- **CodeClimate** - Maintainability and test coverage
-- **Dependabot** - Dependency vulnerability scanning
-
-### Review Tools
-
-- **GitHub Pull Requests** - Primary review interface
-- **VS Code Live Share** - Collaborative debugging
-- **Postman** - API testing during review
-- **Browser DevTools** - Frontend functionality testing
-
-## Metrics and Improvement
-
-### Review Metrics
-
-- Average review time
-- Number of review iterations
-- Defect detection rate
-- Code quality trends
-
-### Continuous Improvement
-
-- Monthly review process retrospectives
-- Code quality trend analysis
-- Reviewer training and development
-- Process refinement based on feedback
-
----
-
-Remember: The goal of code review is to maintain high quality, share knowledge, and catch issues
-early. Focus on constructive feedback that helps the team grow and deliver excellent solutions to
-our clients.