Update PR template for an improved reviewing experience

[aviruthen]

What's changing and why?

In this section, a developer would briefly but clearly explain the changes they made. Here is an example of this:

This is a demo of an updated PR template that our team can adopt. As you will notice, this new template encourages the requester to focus on 5 key things:

1. Elaborate on what is changing and why (motivation)?
2. Describe the previous user experience and what the new user experience will be (before/after UX)
3. Discuss how the change was tested
4. Tell the reviewer what sort of code coverage unit tests provide (this will hopefully be automated in the future)
5. Clearly specify if integration tests are needed or if they have already been implemented

Before/After UX

In this section, a developer would elaborate on the before/after user experience to clarify to reviewers the benefit of their changes. Here is an example of this:

Before:
The previous team template was not being thoroughly used and did not require thorough explanations of the changes that were made along with how those changes were tested. This would often lead to confusion for the reviewer and basic mistakes for the requester (e.g. forgetting to include unit tests).

After:
The hope is that this current template will provide developers a structured way of telling their reviewers clearly and effectively what changes they made and also how it is currently being tested. This should simplify communication between developer and reviewer and hopefully allow for faster reviews.

How was this change tested?

In this section, a developer would describe how their changes were tested. Here is an example of this:

(SAMPLE RESPONSE): Unit tests were provided for typical usage and various edge-cases that a user might encounter. This includes a happy-case workflow along with handling of incorrect usage and parameters set to their extreme values. In total, these tests provide 100% code coverage of the new changes made. The team plans to incorporate integration testing for these changes, but these tests are still under development.

The following three sections provide a checklist for the requester to communicate additional information as needed:

Unit test coverage

• All new/modified code has unit tests
• Coverage verified for changed code
• N/A - no testable code changes

Do we need integration tests?

• Yes - integration tests added
• No - unit tests sufficient
• No - infrastructure/config change only
• Unsure - please advise

---

Checklist

• PR title clearly describes the change
• No sensitive information exposed and security is maintained
• Ready for review

[aviruthen]

What's changing and why?

In this section, a developer would briefly but clearly explain the changes they made. Here is an example of this:

This is a demo of an updated PR template that our team can adopt. As you will notice, this new template encourages the requester to focus on 5 key things:

1. Elaborate on what is changing and why (motivation)?
2. Describe the previous user experience and what the new user experience will be (before/after UX)
3. Discuss how the change was tested
4. Tell the reviewer what sort of code coverage unit tests provide (this will hopefully be automated in the future)
5. Clearly specify if integration tests are needed or if they have already been implemented

Before/After UX

In this section, a developer would elaborate on the before/after user experience to clarify to reviewers the benefit of their changes. Here is an example of this:

Before:
The previous team template was not being thoroughly used and did not require thorough explanations of the changes that were made along with how those changes were tested. This would often lead to confusion for the reviewer and basic mistakes for the requester (e.g. forgetting to include unit tests).

After:
The hope is that this current template will provide developers a structured way of telling their reviewers clearly and effectively what changes they made and also how it is currently being tested. This should simplify communication between developer and reviewer and hopefully allow for faster reviews.

How was this change tested?

In this section, a developer would describe how their changes were tested. Here is an example of this:

(SAMPLE RESPONSE): Unit tests were provided for typical usage and various edge-cases that a user might encounter. This includes a happy-case workflow along with handling of incorrect usage and parameters set to their extreme values. In total, these tests provide 100% code coverage of the new changes made. The team plans to incorporate integration testing for these changes, but these tests are still under development.

The following three sections provide a checklist for the requester to communicate additional information as needed:

Unit test coverage

• All new/modified code has unit tests
• Coverage verified for changed code
• N/A - no testable code changes

Do we need integration tests?

• Yes - integration tests added
• No - unit tests sufficient
• No - infrastructure/config change only
• Unsure - please advise

---

Checklist

• PR title clearly describes the change
• No sensitive information exposed and security is maintained
• Ready for review

[aviruthen]

What's changing and why?

In this section, a developer would briefly but clearly explain the changes they made. Here is an example of this:

This is a demo of an updated PR template that our team can adopt. As you will notice, this new template encourages the requester to focus on 5 key things:

1. Elaborate on what is changing and why (motivation)?
2. Describe the previous user experience and what the new user experience will be (before/after UX)
3. Discuss how the change was tested
4. Tell the reviewer what sort of code coverage unit tests provide (this will hopefully be automated in the future)
5. Clearly specify if integration tests are needed or if they have already been implemented

Before/After UX

In this section, a developer would elaborate on the before/after user experience to clarify to reviewers the benefit of their changes. Here is an example of this:

Before:
The previous team template was not being thoroughly used and did not require thorough explanations of the changes that were made along with how those changes were tested. This would often lead to confusion for the reviewer and basic mistakes for the requester (e.g. forgetting to include unit tests).

After:
The hope is that this current template will provide developers a structured way of telling their reviewers clearly and effectively what changes they made and also how it is currently being tested. This should simplify communication between developer and reviewer and hopefully allow for faster reviews.

How was this change tested?

In this section, a developer would describe how their changes were tested. Here is an example of this:

(SAMPLE RESPONSE): Unit tests were provided for typical usage and various edge-cases that a user might encounter. This includes a happy-case workflow along with handling of incorrect usage and parameters set to their extreme values. In total, these tests provide 100% code coverage of the new changes made. The team plans to incorporate integration testing for these changes, but these tests are still under development.

The following three sections provide a checklist for the requester to communicate additional information as needed:

Unit test coverage

• All new/modified code has unit tests
• Coverage verified for changed code
• N/A - no testable code changes

Do we need integration tests?

• Yes - integration tests added
• No - unit tests sufficient
• No - infrastructure/config change only
• Unsure - please advise

---

Checklist

• PR title clearly describes the change
• No sensitive information exposed and security is maintained
• Ready for review

[aviruthen]

What's changing and why?

In this section, a developer would briefly but clearly explain the changes they made. Here is an example of this:

This is a demo of an updated PR template that our team can adopt. As you will notice, this new template encourages the requester to focus on 5 key things:

1. Elaborate on what is changing and why (motivation)?
2. Describe the previous user experience and what the new user experience will be (before/after UX)
3. Discuss how the change was tested
4. Tell the reviewer what sort of code coverage unit tests provide (this will hopefully be automated in the future)
5. Clearly specify if integration tests are needed or if they have already been implemented

Before/After UX

In this section, a developer would elaborate on the before/after user experience to clarify to reviewers the benefit of their changes. Here is an example of this:

Before:
The previous team template was not being thoroughly used and did not require thorough explanations of the changes that were made along with how those changes were tested. This would often lead to confusion for the reviewer and basic mistakes for the requester (e.g. forgetting to include unit tests).

After:
The hope is that this current template will provide developers a structured way of telling their reviewers clearly and effectively what changes they made and also how it is currently being tested. This should simplify communication between developer and reviewer and hopefully allow for faster reviews.

How was this change tested?

In this section, a developer would describe how their changes were tested. Here is an example of this:

(SAMPLE RESPONSE): Unit tests were provided for typical usage and various edge-cases that a user might encounter. This includes a happy-case workflow along with handling of incorrect usage and parameters set to their extreme values. In total, these tests provide 100% code coverage of the new changes made. The team plans to incorporate integration testing for these changes, but these tests are still under development.

The following three sections provide a checklist for the requester to communicate additional information as needed:

Unit test coverage

• All new/modified code has unit tests
• Coverage verified for changed code
• N/A - no testable code changes

Do we need integration tests?

• Yes - integration tests added
• No - unit tests sufficient
• No - infrastructure/config change only
• Unsure - please advise

---

Checklist

• PR title clearly describes the change
• No sensitive information exposed and security is maintained
• Ready for review

[aviruthen]

What's changing and why?

In this section, a developer would briefly but clearly explain the changes they made. Here is an example of this:

This is a demo of an updated PR template that our team can adopt. As you will notice, this new template encourages the requester to focus on 5 key things:

1. Elaborate on what is changing and why (motivation)?
2. Describe the previous user experience and what the new user experience will be (before/after UX)
3. Discuss how the change was tested
4. Tell the reviewer what sort of code coverage unit tests provide (this will hopefully be automated in the future)
5. Clearly specify if integration tests are needed or if they have already been implemented

Before/After UX

In this section, a developer would elaborate on the before/after user experience to clarify to reviewers the benefit of their changes. Here is an example of this:

Before:
The previous team template was not being thoroughly used and did not require thorough explanations of the changes that were made along with how those changes were tested. This would often lead to confusion for the reviewer and basic mistakes for the requester (e.g. forgetting to include unit tests).

After:
The hope is that this current template will provide developers a structured way of telling their reviewers clearly and effectively what changes they made and also how it is currently being tested. This should simplify communication between developer and reviewer and hopefully allow for faster reviews.

How was this change tested?

In this section, a developer would describe how their changes were tested. Here is an example of this:

(SAMPLE RESPONSE): Unit tests were provided for typical usage and various edge-cases that a user might encounter. This includes a happy-case workflow along with handling of incorrect usage and parameters set to their extreme values. In total, these tests provide 100% code coverage of the new changes made. The team plans to incorporate integration testing for these changes, but these tests are still under development.

The following three sections provide a checklist for the requester to communicate additional information as needed:

Unit test coverage

• All new/modified code has unit tests
• Coverage verified for changed code
• N/A - no testable code changes

Do we need integration tests?

• Yes - integration tests added
• No - unit tests sufficient
• No - infrastructure/config change only
• Unsure - please advise

---

Checklist

• PR title clearly describes the change
• No sensitive information exposed and security is maintained
• Ready for review

[aviruthen]

What's changing and why?

In this section, a developer would briefly but clearly explain the changes they made. Here is an example of this:

This is a demo of an updated PR template that our team can adopt. As you will notice, this new template encourages the requester to focus on 5 key things:

1. Elaborate on what is changing and why (motivation)?
2. Describe the previous user experience and what the new user experience will be (before/after UX)
3. Discuss how the change was tested
4. Tell the reviewer what sort of code coverage unit tests provide (this will hopefully be automated in the future)
5. Clearly specify if integration tests are needed or if they have already been implemented

Before/After UX

In this section, a developer would elaborate on the before/after user experience to clarify to reviewers the benefit of their changes. Here is an example of this:

Before:
The previous team template was not being thoroughly used and did not require thorough explanations of the changes that were made along with how those changes were tested. This would often lead to confusion for the reviewer and basic mistakes for the requester (e.g. forgetting to include unit tests).

After:
The hope is that this current template will provide developers a structured way of telling their reviewers clearly and effectively what changes they made and also how it is currently being tested. This should simplify communication between developer and reviewer and hopefully allow for faster reviews.

How was this change tested?

In this section, a developer would describe how their changes were tested. Here is an example of this:

(SAMPLE RESPONSE): Unit tests were provided for typical usage and various edge-cases that a user might encounter. This includes a happy-case workflow along with handling of incorrect usage and parameters set to their extreme values. In total, these tests provide 100% code coverage of the new changes made. The team plans to incorporate integration testing for these changes, but these tests are still under development.

The following three sections provide a checklist for the requester to communicate additional information as needed:

Unit test coverage

• All new/modified code has unit tests
• Coverage verified for changed code
• N/A - no testable code changes

Do we need integration tests?

• Yes - integration tests added
• No - unit tests sufficient
• No - infrastructure/config change only
• Unsure - please advise

---

Checklist

• PR title clearly describes the change
• No sensitive information exposed and security is maintained
• Ready for review

[aviruthen]

What's changing and why?

In this section, a developer would briefly but clearly explain the changes they made. Here is an example of this:

This is a demo of an updated PR template that our team can adopt. As you will notice, this new template encourages the requester to focus on 5 key things:

1. Elaborate on what is changing and why (motivation)?
2. Describe the previous user experience and what the new user experience will be (before/after UX)
3. Discuss how the change was tested
4. Tell the reviewer what sort of code coverage unit tests provide (this will hopefully be automated in the future)
5. Clearly specify if integration tests are needed or if they have already been implemented

Before/After UX

In this section, a developer would elaborate on the before/after user experience to clarify to reviewers the benefit of their changes. Here is an example of this:

Before:
The previous team template was not being thoroughly used and did not require thorough explanations of the changes that were made along with how those changes were tested. This would often lead to confusion for the reviewer and basic mistakes for the requester (e.g. forgetting to include unit tests).

After:
The hope is that this current template will provide developers a structured way of telling their reviewers clearly and effectively what changes they made and also how it is currently being tested. This should simplify communication between developer and reviewer and hopefully allow for faster reviews.

How was this change tested?

In this section, a developer would describe how their changes were tested. Here is an example of this:

(SAMPLE RESPONSE): Unit tests were provided for typical usage and various edge-cases that a user might encounter. This includes a happy-case workflow along with handling of incorrect usage and parameters set to their extreme values. In total, these tests provide 100% code coverage of the new changes made. The team plans to incorporate integration testing for these changes, but these tests are still under development.

The following three sections provide a checklist for the requester to communicate additional information as needed:

Unit test coverage

• All new/modified code has unit tests
• Coverage verified for changed code
• N/A - no testable code changes

Do we need integration tests?

• Yes - integration tests added
• No - unit tests sufficient
• No - infrastructure/config change only
• Unsure - please advise

---

Checklist

• PR title clearly describes the change
• No sensitive information exposed and security is maintained
• Ready for review

[aviruthen]

What's changing and why?

In this section, a developer would briefly but clearly explain the changes they made. Here is an example of this:

This is a demo of an updated PR template that our team can adopt. As you will notice, this new template encourages the requester to focus on 5 key things:

1. Elaborate on what is changing and why (motivation)?
2. Describe the previous user experience and what the new user experience will be (before/after UX)
3. Discuss how the change was tested
4. Tell the reviewer what sort of code coverage unit tests provide (this will hopefully be automated in the future)
5. Clearly specify if integration tests are needed or if they have already been implemented

Before/After UX

In this section, a developer would elaborate on the before/after user experience to clarify to reviewers the benefit of their changes. Here is an example of this:

Before:
The previous team template was not being thoroughly used and did not require thorough explanations of the changes that were made along with how those changes were tested. This would often lead to confusion for the reviewer and basic mistakes for the requester (e.g. forgetting to include unit tests).

After:
The hope is that this current template will provide developers a structured way of telling their reviewers clearly and effectively what changes they made and also how it is currently being tested. This should simplify communication between developer and reviewer and hopefully allow for faster reviews.

How was this change tested?

In this section, a developer would describe how their changes were tested. Here is an example of this:

(SAMPLE RESPONSE): Unit tests were provided for typical usage and various edge-cases that a user might encounter. This includes a happy-case workflow along with handling of incorrect usage and parameters set to their extreme values. In total, these tests provide 100% code coverage of the new changes made. The team plans to incorporate integration testing for these changes, but these tests are still under development.

The following three sections provide a checklist for the requester to communicate additional information as needed:

Unit test coverage

• All new/modified code has unit tests
• Coverage verified for changed code
• N/A - no testable code changes

Do we need integration tests?

• Yes - integration tests added
• No - unit tests sufficient
• No - infrastructure/config change only
• Unsure - please advise

---

Checklist

• PR title clearly describes the change
• No sensitive information exposed and security is maintained
• Ready for review