A development group introduced a process that enforces consistent code style and analyzes for design flaws before new merges. Which solution best addresses these goals in an automated pipeline?
Schedule a manual inspection in a regular meeting after merges are finished
Implement a scanner that identifies code inconsistencies and potential flaws at commit time
Adopt a peer-review approach after integration is complete
Rely on user acceptance validation to uncover code faults in a pre-release environment
A scanner that runs checks as soon as code is committed promotes early detection of style and security issues. Developers can address them before merging, reducing technical debt. Manual reviews can overlook subtle weaknesses, scanning after the final build can delay fixes, and postponing checks can allow serious flaws to reach production.
Ask Bash
Bash is our AI bot, trained to help you pass your exam. AI Generated Content may display inaccurate information, always double-check anything important.
What is an automated pipeline, and how does it benefit software development?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
How do code style scanners work, and why are they important?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What are 'design flaws' in code, and how can automated scanners identify them?