Code Review Process Clause Samples

Code Review Process. To enforce the quality requirements to Pointshop 2 addons, it is mandatory to have it reviewed by the author of Pointshop2. Independent of the addon’s size and function it is necessary to get approval prior to publishing the script. Pointshop 2 is designed to be extended and modified through external scripts, which is why as a developer you will receive support working with the codebase. The code review is free for publicly released scripts and is available at a fee of 10$ for every commercial script (this includes coderhire jobs and scripts). This fee is used to maintain and update the developer documentation, add new functions and APIs for you to use and to provide premium support and advice when writing plugins. It also serves as a guard to protect against “5 second scripts” and low quality, hacked together scripts. Please note that if you do not comply to this agreement, your script will not be approved. During the code review the code will be checked for exploits, problems with the existing codebase and incompatibil- ities with existing and future addons. You will receive a written summary of the review and proposed changes. After fixing these problems you will receive a green light to release the addon. Follow up code reviews and code reviews for updates are free. Support and information during the creation of a script are free. If you have any problems or a question about the codebase or require additional functionality do not hesitate to get in touch via steam, coderhire PM or email. To summarize: For free (public scripts) or a small fee (commercial scripts) you get: • Personal support • Code review and quality assurance • Compatibility testing against all addons in the program • Listed on the script’s page and officiall endorsement by Pointshop 2 • Promotion through Pointshop 2 communication channels Requirements that will be checked: • Support for both, MySQL and SQLite • Configuration possible through GUI, no lua configs • Possibility to completely reset the addon • Adherence to modification guidelines
View Source
Code Review Process. The objective of code reviews is to find security vulnerabilities, validate the proper use of security mechanisms, and evaluate the use of best practices in the application. This involves a combination of manual penetration testing, automated code analysis, and manual code analysis to discover flaws. Wireless Generation reviews code both prior to release and periodically afterwards. Wireless Generation uses a risk-management approach to rate the severity of vulnerabilities found in code. Vulnerabilities are assigned a likelihood and impact score relative to their technical and business context. Discovered issues are ranked by severity and tracked for resolution.
View Source

Related to Code Review Process

  • Review Process A/E's Work Product will be reviewed by County under its applicable technical requirements and procedures, as follows:

  • Review Procedure If the Plan Administrator denies part or all of the claim, the claimant shall have the opportunity for a full and fair review by the Plan Administrator of the denial, as follows:

  • Review Protocol A narrative description of how the Claims Review was conducted and what was evaluated.

  • Claims Review Population A description of the Population subject to the Claims Review.

  • Review Procedures a. In consultation with the Illinois SHPO, NRCS shall identify those undertakings with little to no potential to affect historic properties and list those undertakings in Appendix A. Upon the determination by the CRS that a proposed undertaking is included in Appendix A, the NRCS is not required to consult further with the SHPO for that undertaking. A list of undertakings with the potential to affect historic properties comprises Appendix B. b. The lists of undertakings provided in Appendices A and B may be modified through consultation and written agreement between the NRCS State Conservationist and the SHPO without requiring an amendment to this Illinois Prototype Agreement. The NRCS State Office will maintain the master list and will provide an updated list to all consulting parties with an explanation of the rationale for classifying the practices accordingly. c. Undertakings identified in Appendix B shall require further review as outlined in Stipulation V. a. The NRCS shall consult with the SHPO to define the undertaking’s APE, identify and evaluate historic properties that may be affected by the undertaking, assess potential effects, and identify strategies for resolving adverse effects prior to implementing the undertaking. 1) NRCS may provide its proposed APE, identification of historic properties and/or scope of identification efforts, and assessment of effects in a single transmittal to the SHPO, provided this documentation meets the substantive standards in 36 CFR Part 800.4-5 and 800.11. 2) The NRCS shall attempt to avoid adverse effects to historic properties whenever possible; where historic properties are located in the APE, NRCS shall describe how it proposes to modify, buffer, or move the undertaking to avoid adverse effects to historic properties. 3) Where the NRCS proposes a finding of "no historic properties affected" or "no adverse effect" to historic properties, the SHPO shall have 30 calendar days from receipt of this documented description and information to review it and provide comments. The NRCS shall take into account all timely comments. i. If the SHPO, or another consulting party, disagrees with NRCS' findings and/or determination, it shall notify the NRCS within the thirty (30) calendar daytime period. The NRCS shall consult with the SHPO or other consulting party to attempt to resolve the disagreement. If the disagreement cannot be resolved through this consultation, NRCS shall follow the dispute resolution process in Stipulation VIII below. ii. If the SHPO does not respond to the NRCS within the thirty (30) calendar day period and/or the NRCS receives no objections from other consulting parties, or if the SHPO concurs with the NRCS' determination and proposed actions to avoid adverse effects, the NRCS shall document the concurrence/lack of response within the review time noted above and may move forward with the undertaking. 4) Where a proposed undertaking may adversely affect historic properties, NRCS shall describe proposed measures to minimize or mitigate the adverse effects, and follow the process in 36 CFR Part 800.6, including consultation with other consulting patties and notification to the ACHP, to develop a Memorandum of Agreement to resolve the adverse effects. Should the proposed undertaking have the potential to adversely affect a known NHL, the NRCS shall, to the maximum extent possible, undertake such planning and actions that may be necessary to minimize harm to the NHL in accordance with 54 U.S.C. § 306107 of the NHPA and 36 CFR Part 800.6 and 800.10, including consultation with the ACHP and respective National Park Service, Regional National Historic Landmark Program Coordinator, to develop a Memorandum of Agreement. d. NRCS will conduct archaeological surveys and will submit reports and other documentation to SHPO for review and comment. When no archaeological sites have been located by the archaeological survey, NRCS may proceed with the proposed undertaking. Reports for negative surveys must be submitted to SHPO on a quarterly basis. All positive and negative reports submitted to SHPO will be sent digitally for submission to the Inventory of Illinois Archaeological Sites (IAS) data file maintained by staff at the Illinois State Museum (ISM) housed under the Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR). The NRCS further agrees that access to specific site location data will be restricted to the CRS, the NRCS field personnel installing conservation practices adjacent to the cultural resource, and the landowner. Specific site location information for individual projects will be maintained in a secure cultural resources file kept in the field offices and will not be available to the public. e. Curation: NRCS personnel will not collect artifactual material during routine field inspections. However, if a professional survey, evaluation testing, or mitigation is required, NRCS shall ensure that all materials and records resulting from cultural resources surveys or data recovery activities on federal or state property are curated by the Illinois State Museum. The NRCS shall ensure that all records resulting from cultural resource surveys or data recovery activities on private property are curated by the Illinois State Museum or an equivalent curation facility in accordance with 36 CFR Part 79. Subject to the landowner's permission, all objects resulting from cultural resources surveys or data recovery activities are maintained by the Illinois State Museum or equivalent research institution until their analysis is complete and they are returned to their owner(s). Although landowners will be encouraged to donate artifactual material, it is understood that objects collected on private land remain the property of the landowner(s) unless the landowner(s) donates the material to the Illinois State Museum or equivalent research institution. This excludes burial goods, as stipulated by ▇▇▇▇▇▇.