Bad Practices in Continuous Integration
Reviewed by Greg Wilson / 2021-10-18
Keywords: Continuous Integration
The slow but steady normalization of continuous integration (CI)
has changed software development just as profoundly as reliance on Q&A sites:
by the time I have merged a pull request into the
of one of the project's I'm working on,
a dozen different checks and actions have run automatically,
at least half of which could reject the merge.
I believe this automation has made developers more productive,
but like any tool it can be used badly,
so Zampetti2020 used interviews and mined Stack Overflow posts to find out how.
Their complete catalog divides 79 distinct smells into seven categories—repository issues,
build process organization,
and culture—and the underlying data is
As with evidence-based taxonomies in other domains,
I hope this work will be taken up by people building CI tools
(and linters for those tools).
Zampetti2020 Fiorella Zampetti, Carmine Vassallo, Sebastiano Panichella, Gerardo Canfora, Harald Gall, and Massimiliano Di Penta: "An empirical characterization of bad practices in continuous integration". Empirical Software Engineering, 25(2), 2020, 10.1007/s10664-019-09785-8.
Continuous Integration (CI) has been claimed to introduce several benefits in software development, including high software quality and reliability. However, recent work pointed out challenges, barriers and bad practices characterizing its adoption. This paper empirically investigates what are the bad practices experienced by developers applying CI. The investigation has been conducted by leveraging semi-structured interviews of 13 experts and mining more than 2,300 Stack Overflow posts. As a result, we compiled a catalog of 79 CI bad smells belonging to 7 categories related to different dimensions of a CI pipeline management and process. We have also investigated the perceived importance of the identified bad smells through a survey involving 26 professional developers, and discussed how the results of our study relate to existing knowledge about CI bad practices. Whilst some results, such as the poor usage of branches, confirm existing literature, the study also highlights uncovered bad practices, e.g., related to static analysis tools or the abuse of shell scripts, and contradict knowledge from existing literature, e.g., about avoiding nightly builds. We discuss the implications of our catalog of CI bad smells for (i) practitioners, e.g., favor specific, portable tools over hacking, and do not ignore nor hide build failures, (ii) educators, e.g., teach CI culture, not just technology, and teach CI by providing examples of what not to do, and (iii) researchers, e.g., developing support for failure analysis, as well as automated CI bad smell detectors.