Managing Upsource

Managing Upsource

Overview

Manage JetBrains Upsource code review workflows, including review creation, automated code inspections, branch-based reviews, and IDE integration for seamless review experiences.

Key Capabilities

• Create and manage code reviews tied to branches or commits
• Run automated code inspections based on IntelliJ platform analysis
• Configure review workflows with custom states and transitions
• Set up branch review policies for automatic review creation
• Integrate with JetBrains IDEs for in-editor review participation
• Track code quality metrics and review analytics

Workflow

1 — Review Workflow Configuration

REVIEW WORKFLOW
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
[ ] Review model: branch-based / commit-based
[ ] Auto-create reviews for branches: YES / NO
[ ] Branch patterns for auto-review:
    - feature/*  -> require review
    - hotfix/*   -> require review
    - main       -> protected (no direct push)
[ ] Required reviewers: ___
[ ] Review completion criteria:
    - All reviewers accepted: YES / NO
    - No unresolved discussions: YES / NO
    - All inspections pass: YES / NO

2 — Code Inspections

AUTOMATED INSPECTIONS
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
[ ] Inspection profiles:
    - Default (all inspections)
    - Security-focused
    - Performance-focused
[ ] Run on: every commit / review creation / manual
[ ] Block merge on:
    - Critical issues: YES / NO
    - Warning-level issues: YES / NO
[ ] Custom inspection rules: ___

3 — Project Settings

PROJECT CONFIGURATION
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
[ ] Default reviewers per project: ___
[ ] Review label schema: accept / concern / reject
[ ] Discussion resolution required: YES / NO
[ ] Merge check integration: YES / NO
[ ] Code intelligence enabled: YES / NO

Common Operations

List Open Reviews

Query open reviews by project, branch, or reviewer status.

Inspection Results

View automated inspection findings grouped by severity and category.

Review Analytics

Track review velocity, inspection pass rates, and code quality trends.

Troubleshooting

Output Format

Present results as a structured report:

Managing Upsource Report
════════════════════════
Resources discovered: [count]

Resource       Status    Key Metric    Issues
──────────────────────────────────────────────
[name]         [ok/warn] [value]       [findings]

Summary: [total] resources | [ok] healthy | [warn] warnings | [crit] critical
Action Items: [list of prioritized findings]

Target ≤50 lines of output. Use tables for multi-resource comparisons.

Anti-Hallucination Rules

1. NEVER assume resource names — always discover via CLI/API in Phase 1 before referencing in Phase 2.
2. NEVER fabricate metric names or dimensions — verify against the service documentation or --help output.
3. NEVER mix CLI commands between service versions — confirm which version/API you are targeting.
4. ALWAYS use the discovery → verify → analyze chain — every resource referenced must have been discovered first.
5. ALWAYS handle empty results gracefully — an empty response is valid data, not an error to retry.

Counter-Rationalizations