Improve the doc page: Fixing a feature that’s halfway through the pipeline
The procedure as written seems complex and counter-intuitive
Given that a developer sees the process as DEV->Integration->UAT, if an error is detected in UAT manual or automated testing, the fix should flow from DEV -> integration -> UAT.
But the article has the fix going from DEV->UAT and then back propagations back to Integration plus manual PRs created in VCS. This seems way too complicated and hard to understand for a mere admin or junior dev
Eric Kintzer
shared this idea
-
Hey Eric! Thanks for your feedback.
We took it on board and have now written an article - https://docs.gearset.com/en/articles/8926037-edit-or-fix-a-user-story-in-progress-in-pipelines - that covers different scenarios based on what's the need and urgency of the fix. It gives different options and should support different levels of technical abilities. Hope it's more clear!
Let us know if you have any extra feedback on this.
Thank you again,
Gearset
