1. Home
  2. Code Review Tools
  3. Crucible Reviews
  4. User Review of Crucible
Facilitates code reviews with some bloat
January 16, 2018

Facilitates code reviews with some bloat

Anonymous | TrustRadius Reviewer
Score 8 out of 10
Vetted Review
Verified User

Overall Satisfaction with Crucible

Crucible is being used by my currentl client across their organization within development teams. Its primary use is for competing code reviews. My team uses it for this purpose within the test automation space, where it not only ensures that branches are following coding standards, but also that automated tests actually capture the validations that are intended.
  • Compares exact branch changes to the master branch
  • Comment feature is excellent for enabling conversations about code
  • Seamless integration with git
  • The frame for viewing code has a scrolling issue, where it jumps to the top when you scroll slightly outside of the window
  • Code shows as updated with other users' contributions if changes in master are pulled into the branch currently under review
  • There is a latency with commits being available to add
  • Has ensured consistent coding across the team
  • Has facilitated discussions on refactors
  • It can sometimes lead to frivolous comments if there is friction on a team
Gitlab and GitHub are very comparable to Crucible, and would probably be my first choice if those were the tools used for versioning as they are directly linked to git. Crucible was chosen by a current client and I had no choice in its selection. I would probably have chosen GitHub if given a say.
Crucible is well suited for situations where development teams follow a branch-based merge process, where new features or automation stories are introduced. It allows more seasoned team members to check newer team members' code to ensure standards are followed. It is probably less appropriate for smaller development teams or smaller projects, where code reviews can be less formal.