Component Quality Gates

Component quality gates are checkpoints that contributions must pass before advancing through the contribution workflow. Effective component quality gates catch issues early, ensure consistent standards, and provide clear feedback to contributors.

What Are Component Quality Gates

Component quality gates are mandatory checkpoints within the contribution process that verify specific quality criteria have been met. Gates combine automated validation with human review requirements, blocking progress until all criteria are satisfied.

Quality gates serve multiple purposes. They prevent low-quality contributions from reaching production. They provide early feedback that enables correction before significant investment. They ensure consistent evaluation regardless of who reviews contributions.

How Component Quality Gates Work

Automated gates verify criteria that tooling can assess objectively. Test suites must pass. Linting must show no errors. Type checking must succeed. Accessibility scanners must detect no violations. Build processes must complete successfully. Automated gates run quickly and provide immediate feedback.

Review gates require human evaluation and approval. Design review gates require designer sign-off. Code review gates require engineering approval. Accessibility review gates may require specialist evaluation. Review gates ensure judgment-dependent criteria receive appropriate attention.

Progressive gates create multiple checkpoints through the contribution journey. Early gates verify basic requirements before significant investment. Later gates assess more comprehensive criteria. Progressive gating catches issues at appropriate points rather than discovering everything at the end.

Blocking behavior ensures gates are meaningful. Failed gates prevent progression regardless of urgency or contributor seniority. This blocking behavior maintains standards even under pressure. Override mechanisms for emergencies should be rare and well-documented.

Key Considerations

• Gate criteria should be clear and documented
• Automated gates should run quickly to enable rapid iteration
• Review gate owners should have capacity to respond promptly
• Gate failure feedback should be actionable
• Gate effectiveness should be monitored and adjusted

Common Questions

How many quality gates should exist?

Gate count should balance thoroughness with contributor experience. Too few gates allow issues to progress too far before detection. Too many gates create friction that discourages contribution. Most workflows have three to five major gates: initial validation, design review, code review, and final approval. Organizations should calibrate based on contribution patterns and quality outcomes.

What happens when gates conflict with business urgency?

Quality gates should not bend to business urgency except in genuine emergencies. Consistent enforcement maintains standards over time. However, organizations may define expedited paths for critical fixes that reduce gate scope while maintaining minimum requirements. These paths should be rare exceptions, not routine alternatives.

How do organizations handle gate failures?

Gate failures should produce clear, actionable feedback that enables contributors to resolve issues. Feedback should identify what failed, why it matters, and how to fix it. Support channels should be available when feedback is unclear. Tracking gate failure patterns helps identify common issues that might benefit from better documentation or tooling.

Summary

Component quality gates ensure contributions meet standards through automated checks and review requirements. Success requires clear criteria, rapid automated feedback, and responsive review. Organizations should design gates that protect quality without creating unnecessary friction for contributors.