New answers tagged

0

It seems some people have forgotten the most important question: What is it that you want to actually achieve with code reviews? The purpose of code reviews is to get bug-free and maintainable code quicker. Code reviews achieve this in several ways: Developers write better code in the first place because they know it will be reviewed, knowledge is shared ...


0

As someone who's been on both sides of this (reviewing code written by others, as well as having code I've written reviewed), I'd say that I have three categories any feedback falls into. Well, four, there's also the delightful case of "all is well". "Would be nice, but it won't block you" (if all the feedback fall in this category, I may send off the merge ...


0

Review the Review Process In addition to code reviews I would suggest to also review the Review Process on a regular basis. There is certainly a lot that people can learn here as well, e.g. how to give proper code reviews. Usually some of the bike-shedders are only inexperienced and just don't know what to look for. They need a bit of guidance not only w/...


2

The simple answer to prevent "trivial" code review comments are to insist (for the sake of efficiency) that the reviewer should be the one to fix them. So if the reviewer finds that you've (horror!) missed a fullstop or spelt a comment wrongly, they should just fix it and move on. In my experience this means that: your reviewers stop making these ...


3

Here comes the practical answer: Scenario 1: You are the senior member and someone who can decide the practice Call a meeting and lay out the Code Review rules and guidelines. Trust me, clear guidelines work better than any 'honour' system or training. Make it clear that code formatting issues must not be raised at all. Some members will object. Listen to ...


5

People comment on code formatting and typos because they are easy to spot and don't require much effort from them. This part is easy to fix - almost any language have a linter or style checker tool. Plugin it in you build process, so that it would fail the build if there is a redundant space. As a result there will be no style issues to comment on. ...


13

Types of reviews There is no one true way to do peer reviews. There are many ways in which to judge whether code is of a sufficiently high quality. Clearly there is the question of whether it's buggy, or whether it has solutions that don't scale or which are brittle. Issues of conformance to local standards and guidelines, while perhaps not as critical as ...


0

Commit where? There's a branch that I created to do some work. I commit to that branch whenever I feel like it. It's nobody's business. Then at some point that branch is integrated into a development branch. And somewhere in between is a code review. The reviewer reviews obviously after I committed to my branch. He's not sitting at my desk, so he cannot ...


0

The advantage of code review on check in (buddy check) is immediate feedback, before large pieces of code have been completed. The disadvantage of code review on check in is that it can discourage people from checking in until long stretches of code have been completed. If this happens, it completely negates the advantage. What makes this more difficult ...


1

Me and my colleagues did some scientific research on this topic recently, so I'd like to add some of our insights despite this being a rather old question. We built a simulation model of an agile Kanban development process/team and compared pre commit and post commit review for a large number of different situations (different number of team members, ...


6

Fagan inspections are meant to catch errors in early phases of an explicitly waterfall process so that the team is less likely to have to move back up the process to fix errors, because doing so is extraordinarily expensive. Waterfall processes in general and the work products that support them have fallen very much out of favor for consumer software ...


-3

Yes they do, I would say that is what is usually known as unit testing - not code reviewing. From the linked Wikipedia article: "Fagan Inspection defines a process as a certain activity with a pre-specified entry and exit criteria. In every activity or operation for which entry and exit criteria are specified Fagan Inspections can be used to validate if the ...



Top 50 recent answers are included