We can stop the decision logic even from this place, as we omit the authentication when secrets are not set yet.
Note
This code review checklist is intended to serve as a starting point for the author and reviewer, although it may not be appropriate for all types of changes (e.g. fixing a spelling typo in documentation). For more in-depth discussion of how we think about code review, please see Code Review Guidelines.
Author
[x] Self-review your own code in GitHub's web interface[^1]
[ ] Pull in the latest changes from the main branch and squash your commits before assigning a reviewer[^4]
Note
It is good practice to provide before and after UI screenshots in the description of this PR. This is only applicable for changes that modify the UI.
[^1]: Code often looks different when reviewing the diff in a browser, making it easier to spot potential bugs.
[^2]: While we aim for automated testing of the application, some aspects require manual testing. If you had to manually test something during development of this pull request, write those steps down.
[^3]: _While we are not looking for perfect coverage, the tool can point out potential cases that have been missed. Code coverage can be generated with: ./gradlew check for Kotlin modules and ./gradlew connectedCheck -PIS_ANDROID_INSTRUMENTATION_TEST_COVERAGE_ENABLED=true for Android modules._
[^4]: Having your code up to date and squashed will make it easier for others to review. Use best judgement when squashing commits, as some changes (such as refactoring) might be easier to review as a separate commit.
[^5]: In addition to a first pass using the code review guidelines, do a second pass using your best judgement and experience which may identify additional questions or comments. Research shows that code review is most effective when done in multiple passes, where reviewers look for different things through each pass.
[^6]: While the CI server runs the app to look for build failures or crashes, humans running the app are more likely to notice unexpected log messages, UI inconsistencies, or bad output data. Perform this step last, after verifying the code changes are safe to run locally.
We can stop the decision logic even from this place, as we omit the authentication when secrets are not set yet.
Author
Reviewer
[^1]: Code often looks different when reviewing the diff in a browser, making it easier to spot potential bugs. [^2]: While we aim for automated testing of the application, some aspects require manual testing. If you had to manually test something during development of this pull request, write those steps down. [^3]: _While we are not looking for perfect coverage, the tool can point out potential cases that have been missed. Code coverage can be generated with:
./gradlew checkfor Kotlin modules and./gradlew connectedCheck -PIS_ANDROID_INSTRUMENTATION_TEST_COVERAGE_ENABLED=truefor Android modules._ [^4]: Having your code up to date and squashed will make it easier for others to review. Use best judgement when squashing commits, as some changes (such as refactoring) might be easier to review as a separate commit. [^5]: In addition to a first pass using the code review guidelines, do a second pass using your best judgement and experience which may identify additional questions or comments. Research shows that code review is most effective when done in multiple passes, where reviewers look for different things through each pass. [^6]: While the CI server runs the app to look for build failures or crashes, humans running the app are more likely to notice unexpected log messages, UI inconsistencies, or bad output data. Perform this step last, after verifying the code changes are safe to run locally.