A development team wants to block merges to the main pipeline unless automated checks pass and at least one other team member reviews the changes. Which action meets these requirements most effectively?
Use ephemeral environments that run checks without mandating sign-off from another contributor
Lock direct merges to the main pipeline by requiring a reference to an issue in every commit
Allow pipeline hooks that append disclaimers to new commits while permitting merges by administrators
Enable features that prevent merges unless scanning completes successfully and at least one reviewer approves
A configuration that blocks merges unless automated scanning passes and an additional reviewer approves changes helps ensure that poor-quality or risky code does not make it into critical code areas. While ephemeral environments or issue referencing might improve workflow, they do not enforce the necessary checks or additional review to block merges. Allowing administrative changes without review also weakens the control. Requiring a detailed reference to an issue may help trace commits but is not a substitute for testing and review gating.
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 are automated checks in the context of a development pipeline?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
Why is peer review important before merging code into the main pipeline?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What are ephemeral environments, and why might they be insufficient in this scenario?