Security Policies and Threat Insights planning

How we do planning

Our milestone planning is handled asynchronously as much as possible. Planning discussions are fluid and ongoing, in general they do not follow a predefined monthly schedule.

Planning Breakdown

Top priority features from upcoming release milestones go through Planning Breakdown with Product Managers (PMs), Product Designers (UX), Engineering Managers (EMs) & Engineers from the respective groups. Weekly group-level synchronous meetings facilitate this discussion. The list of issues to be discussed is provided by the PM at least 1 day prior to the meeting. The expectation is that all attendees have reviewed the issues prior to the start of the meeting. Attendees should add the carrot 🥕 emoji to signify that an issue has been reviewed in advance.

Questions to be answered:

1. Are requirements clear enough to understand intent of request?
2. Do we know the boundaries of work to be accomplished?

If the answer is “No” to either of these questions, discussion continues with the PM to improve the team’s understanding of the request. If necessary, the discussion will continue asynchronously in the Epic or Issue and is brought back to a future weekly meeting.

If the answer is “Yes” to these questions the team estimates whether or not the issue can be delivered in a single iteration (ignoring any other work that may be in that same iteration). If it’s determined that the issue under discussion cannot be delivered within a single iteration, the team works with the PM to break it into multiple MVC Issues that can each be delivered in an iteration, are independent “slices” of value that can be used by a customer (so no mocked UIs or backend-only work that is inaccessible), and when all delivered will completely fulfill the original issue’s requirements.

• EM output: Once all of the above requirements have been satisfied the EMs assign a frontend and backend engineer as respective DRIs to create Implementation Issues under the MVC epic(s). The Design issue created by UX is also closed at this point by the EM.

• Engineering output: Frontend and backend DRIs create implementation issues following the Implementation template available for the gitlab-org project issues. Once they are done, they unassign themself and move issues to the workflow::refinement state.

Refinement

Issues in the workflow::refinement state are either assigned by EMs to individuals engineers for refinement, or are assigned randomly by the triage bot based on the assign-refinement policy (Threat Insights policy). Note that Epics are slightly different.

Engineers assigned to refine issues are encouraged to ask questions and push back on PM if issues lack the information and/or designs required for successful refinement and execution.

We assign issues for refinement to ensure we have focus on the highest-priority items, as determined by Product Management. This is not an assignment to work on the issue.

• Engineering output: Move issue into the workflow::ready for dev state and unassign themselves if they have completed refinement. Leave issue in workflow::refinement and assign the issue to their EM if for any reason refinement could not be completed. Confirm the issue has the appropriate work type classification.

Release Scope final & kickoff

By the week prior to the completion of the current milestone, the scope of the next release is finalized by EMs and PMs.

• EM output: Deliverable labels are applied to issues we are committing to deliver. It’s up to the EM’s discretion what issues receive this label which is used in the calculation of our Say Do Ratio. Factors include: confidence that the issue will be completed in the milestone, completion of issues rolled over from the previous milestones, commitments with other groups or stakeholders.
• EM output: Move issues that we are unlikely to deliver to the next iteration.
• PM output: Issues with Deliverable labels in the workflow::ready for dev state have been confirmed to be in the correct priority order.

---

Refinement Guidelines

Backlog refinement is the most important step to ensure an issue is ready to move into development and that the issue will match everyone’s expectations when the work is delivered.

The goal of the refinement process is to ensure an issue is ready to be worked on by doing this:

• Identify and resolve outstanding questions or discussions.
• Identify missing dependencies (e.g. backend API).
• Raise any questions, concerns or alternative approaches.
• Outline an implementation plan.
• Assign a weight to the issue.

Refinement steps for Engineers

1. Issues you need to refine will be assigned to you by your EM. Note the differences for bugs and spikes.
2. Backend/Frontend labels:
   • If a backend engineer is required for the issue, ensure a backend label. Otherwise, remove any backend label, assign any relevant labels and you are done.
   • If a frontend engineer is required for the issue, ensure a frontend label. Otherwise, remove any frontend label, assign any relevant labels and you are done.
3. Check the issue for completeness.
   • Does it have the necessary designs?
   • Is the functionality clearly articulated and is there a consensus or decision on how it should function?
   • Are the technical details outlined?
   • Has a consensus been reached or decision been made in areas of discussion?
   • Are there dependencies? Call those out.
4. If the issue is not complete:
   • Tag the relevant people that can help complete the issue and outline what is needed. Tag the appropriate EM and PM, so they know that the item can not be fully refined.
   • If you are unable to resolve blockers to your refinement within a reasonable amount of time (2-3 days dependign on size of initative) see Failing Refinement.
5. Ensure the issue is fully understood.
   • Update the issue description with the final description of what will be implemented.
   • Update the issue description with an implementation plan.
   • Update the issue description with verification steps.
   • Ensure the issue title is accurate for the work being done.
   • Open up new issues for ‘follow-up’ work, or work that was forced out of scope.
6. Assign a weight.
   • If the issue requires both frontend and backend work, it should be split and weighed independently.
7. Determine if a feature flag is needed.
   • If you think that we should use the feature flag for a given issue, add ~“feature flag” label and add in the description a section called Feature Flag with the proposed name.
   • Create a feature flag rollout issue to track the multiple stages of releasing with a feature flag.
   • Consider creating a feature flag clean up issue if the removal of the feature flag will occur in a subsequent milestone.
8. Encourage Community Contributions.
   • If the scope of the issue is well defined and there are no dependencies, consider adding contribution Labels.
   • The ~"quick win" label is particularly helpful but note that you would be volunteering to mentor new contributors.
9. Refinement Review.
   • If the weight you’ve assigned to the issue is 3 or less, move the issue directly to ~"workflow::ready for development".
   • If the weight of the issue is greater than 3, unassign the issue from yourself and request a review from another engineer.
   • When the reviewer agrees with the implementation plan and weight, they will unassign themself and move the issue to ~"workflow::ready for development".

Anyone should be able to read a refined issue’s description and understand what is being solved, how it is solving the problem, and the technical plan for implementing the issue.

In order for someone to understand the issue and its implementation, they should not have to read through all the comments. The important bits should be captured in the description as the single source of truth.

Bug Diagnosis

Note the following differences when refining bugs:

1. As a guideline, spend no more than 1 hour per issue. Bugs that take too long to refine are indicative of a more complex issue.
2. Do not add weight. Our velocity represents the capacity to deliver new, bug-free features.
3. When you hit the time limit for refinement, it’s ok to have uncertainty in the Implementation Plan. It’s sufficient just to direct where you expect the code change to be (high or low level).

Refinement for Spikes

1. Do not add weights¹.
2. Time-box how much time to spend on the issue.
3. The deliverable is typically an answer or solution to be used in upcoming issues.

Refinement for Security Issues

The Security Developer process can be daunting for first-timers. As part of refinement, ask for a volunteer to act as a “Security Issue Release Buddy”.

Failing Refinement

An issue should fail refinement if it can not be worked on without additional information or decisions to be made. To fail an issue:

1. Leave a comment on the issue that it can not be worked on, and highlights what still needs to be done.
2. Unassign yourself if you can not contribute further to issue at the current time.
3. Assign the workflow::blocked label.

Weights

Weights are used as a rough order of magnitude to help signal to the rest of the team how much work is involved. Weights should be considered an artifact of the refinement process, not the purpose of the refinement process.

It is perfectly acceptable if items take longer than the initial weight. We do not want to inflate weights, as velocity is more important than predictability and weight inflation over-emphasizes predictability.

We do not add weights to bugs as this would be double-counting points. When our delivery contains bugs, the velocity should go down so we have time to address any systemic quality problems.

Possible Values

We are using the Fibonacci sequence for issue weights. Definitions of each numeric value are associated with the frontend-weight & backend-weight labels. Anything larger than 5 should be broken down whenever possible.

Setting a frontend-weight or backend-weight label on an issue is optional, but ensure you set the Weight property on the issue during refinement.

Examples of when it may be appropriate to set a weight label instead of / as well as setting the issue weight include:

• On newly drafted issues, where we haven’t yet fully determined the scope or if both frontend and backend are needed.
• On bugs, where we don’t directly assign a weight. The label can help provide guidance on complexity.

Implementation Plan

A list of the steps and the parts of the code that will need to get updated to implement this feature. The implementation plan should also call out any responsibilities for other team members or teams. Example.

The goal of the implementation plan is to spur critical analysis of the issue and have the engineer refining the issue think through what parts of the application will get touched. The implementation plan will also permit other engineers to review the issue and call out any areas of the application that might have dependencies or been overlooked.

Verification Steps

A list of the steps that will need to be followed to verify this feature. The verification steps should also include additional test cases that should be covered. Example.

The purpose of the issue verification procedures is to aid in better understanding the expected change in the application after implementing the issue. Other engineers will be able to evaluate the issue and identify any application components that may have dependencies or have been ignored and that require further testing thanks to the verification steps.

When writing verification steps for a feature or bug fix, it’s important to include both positive and negative scenarios. This helps ensure that the feature or fix only works when specific criteria are met and not in every situation. For example, when verifying MR Approval Policies, you should provide a scenario where approval is required when the policy is violated, and another scenario where approval is not needed when the policy is not violated. This approach allows for a more thorough and accurate testing process.

Verification

The issue verification should be done by someone else other than the MR author².

1. All implementation issues should have verification steps in the description. Our implementation issue template conveniently provides this section.
2. When an engineer has merged their work, they should move their issue into the verification status, indicated by the ~workflow:verification label and wait until they receive notification that their work has been deployed on staging via the release issue email.
3. If possible, after the engineer has received the notification and verified their work in staging, they leave a comment summarizing the testing that was complete.
4. After the change is available on .com/production (make sure the MR has the ~workflow:verification label, so it’s available with GitLab Next turned off), the engineer should verify again, leave a comment summarizing the testing that was completed, and unassign themselves from the issue. Also provide a link to a project or page, if applicable.
5. Unassigned issues in the ~workflow:verification state are assigned randomly by the triage bot based on the verification policy to an applicable team engineer. This engineer should then additionally verify the issue.
6. Once the issue has been verified in production by both engineers, add the workflow::complete label and close the issue.

Planning for PTO

We follow the Govern stage PTO process and GitLab team members Guide to Time Off.

Epic Engineering DRI

As an Epic is ready to move to the refinement stage, the EMs assigns someone as the DRI for each required tech stack. This may happen sooner, during planning breakdown.

As the DRI for an Epic, the engineer is not responsible for executing all the work but they are responsible for:

1. Suggesting the implementation issue breakdown and requesting feedback.
2. Writing the agreed implementation issues.
3. Identifying when further research is required and writing the spike issue(s).
4. Making technical decisions.
5. Providing status updates when requested.
6. Identifying and communicating blockers.
7. Identifying potential security implications and involve a security engineer if necessary
8. Take measurements to reduce the impact of far-reaching work

The DRI may choose to refine and work on the issues they created but they’re not expected to deliver the whole Epic on their own.

FAQs

Q: Should discovery issues be refined?

A: Yes. Discovery issues should be refined but some of the steps above may not be relevant. Use good judgement to apply the process above. The purpose of refining a discovery issue is to make sure the scope of the discovery is clear, what the output will be and that the prerequisites for the discovery are known and completed. Discovery issues can have a habit of dragging out or not creating actionable steps, the refinement process should lock down what needs to be answered in the discovery process.

Q: If an issue has both frontend and backend work how should I weigh it?

A: Issues that require both frontend and backend work are usually broken into multiple implementation issues. An exception is when a single engineer agrees to work on both tech stacks.

Q: What’s the meaning of the emoji in issues?

A: we use them to communicate certain steps in our process.

• 🥕 you have reviewed an issue in preparation for Planning Breakdown.
• 🥒 request to add a specification using Gherkin Keyworks (when life gives you a cucumber, you pickle it).

Footnotes