this post was submitted on 04 Nov 2026
326 points (99.4% liked)
Not The Onion
22952 readers
751 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Please also avoid duplicates.
Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, ableist, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
IMO it shouldn't be merged if it's not deployable. So same thing you said but test before merging, after merging it should start the deployment process automatically. The idea here is that ease of development/code changes would drive up the quality.
If something gets missed, add it to your acceptance tests, it's not that common for things to have to have manual deploys. Dave Farley has a lot of content about CI on YT that I recommend watching (even pre-AI becoming popular)
100 % agree. The purpose of post-merge testing is to have an extra layer of security to prevent bugs from leaking out into prod, not that you should ever consciously merge something that is not deployable. In my experience, testing on a feature before merge tends to focus on what you expect could be broken/bugged. The post-merge/pre-deploy testing exists to catch cross-feature bugs and in general find the stuff you never expected to break in the first place. Basically: Test your feature thoroughly before merging, then test the whole app without focusing on any particular feature before deploying.
There's two sides to this: We have auto-deploy on merge to a staging environment, and a manual deploy to prod. That lets us keep a high rate of development, while we continuously test / use the staging environment internally. The manual prod deploy doesn't cost us any extra time, since it essentially consists of clicking the "deploy to prod" button. The advantage is that we typically get a couple days of delay from something hitting staging before it goes to prod, which has let us catch a couple embarrassing bugs before they hit customers. When that happens, we can improve our testing regime without the bug having ever hit prod in the first place.
So basically, before I click the "deploy to prod" button, I spend maybe 15 minutes clicking around in the staging environment to double-check that all is good, then I double-check that we don't have any known blocking bugs (we just use a dedicated issue-tag for "I found a deploy-blocker on staging, don't deploy to prod before it's fixed.")
That clarifies things. Thought it was more of a babysitting the deployment which would be annoying.
Smoke test them while you got them!