I've often thought that this (and every problem where a manual process is required that is tough to automatically enforce) an AI code reviewer could be very useful.

It's the type of thing you might add to a long checklist of things to make sure you do (or don't do) in an MR template that quickly becomes difficult, if not impossible, for MR authors and especially reviewers to reliably follow.

Tests is another example - you can check that coverage doesn't slip over time, but not that every change is tested. And a human can maybe remember to check if there are tests, even if there are good tests, even if there are tests for every change if coverage tools are well integrated in your system, but not if every change is tested well, and not reliably.

AIs are great at sorting through lots of data to check for errors that a human would miss. Letting it add MR review comments, not letting it make any changes it wants, would allow for a human to provide checks and balances.

So I like the idea, I'm not sure how I feel about limiting it to docs or letting it write changes itself.

"Why CI/CD Still Doesn't Include Continuous Documentation?" (current title) is an interesting direct translation mistake, in the question form. I see it often, and it makes sense.

English doesn't have a succinct way to frame the construct. I wonder if this form will eventually become correct.

Alternatives:

"Why (still) doesn't X do Y?"

"Why is it that X still doesn't do Y?"

"Why doesn't X do Y, still?"

All of these are awkward, but more idiomatic. Currently, at least. :)

this is an ad

My code is self documenting.