Code review workflow must be consistent across code review cycles.

Currently the Code Review cycles are not consistent. The 1st Code Review cycle and subsequent Code Review cycles steps are ambiguous, the IBM documentation is also inaccurate  as per skills Case xx4370. End users have to log into multiple interfaces from 2nd Code Review cycles onwards. The pop up dialogue box are ambiguous when end user attempts to submit a code review from 2nd Code Review cycle  onwards.

Making the Code Review cycle consistency would reduce development time lost conducting Code Reviews.

The developer would benefit from Code Review cycles consistency and ultimately reducing time to market.

For more details refer to APAR defect PH51124 (url link below) which claimed fixed but it is not fixed since the expected output is not resolved. ie. Code review for cycle 1 and cycle 2 are not consistent. https://jazz.net/jazz/web/projects/Rational%20Team%20Concert#action=com.ibm.team.workitem.viewWorkItem&id=559432

Code review for cycle 1 and cycle 2 must be consistent as outlined below.

Code Review cycle 1:

a)     Author logs into Eclipse client

b)     Author creates change set

c)     Author associates with work item say 123

d)     Author clicks “Submit for review” button from Eclipse client.

Code Review cycle 2 onwards:

a)     Author logs into Eclipse client

b)     Author creates change set

c)     Author associates with work item say 123

d)     Author clicks “Submit for review” button from Eclipse client.