Hey, I want your opinion on code reviews, what is the best way to use them in a professional environment? Pick one of the following and give me your thoughts (from the most forgiving to the most strict):

  1. no code reviews, they are useless
  2. optional code reviews
  3. mandatory reviews on code that is already merged, optional fixes
  4. mandatory reviews on code before merging (like a pull request), with a time-frame for optional fixes (i.e. whether to fix what has been pointed out is up to the author), merge will occur anyway.
  5. mandatory reviews on code before merging (PR) with mandatory fixes.

Of course in open source development with public contributions, you’ll often see (5), but I’m not convinced it could work in professional dev.

Edit: I’m talking about a team of 5 mid to senior devs (no junior or interns) working on a 2-3 year project without many security concerns, but feel free to give me your general opinion.

  • litchralee@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    2·
    3 days ago

    but what if for example an issue is internal to a WIP feature?

    I forgot to answer this. The question is always: will this materially impact the deliverable? Will the customer be unhappy if they hit this bug?

    If the WIP feature isn’t declared to be fully working yet, then sure, let it on the branch and create a ticket to fix this particular bug. But closed-loop requires making this ticket, as a reminder to follow it up later, when the feature is almost complete.

    If instead the bug would be catastrophic but is exceptionally rare, then that’s a tough call. But that’s precisely why the call should involve more people, not less. A single person making a tough call is always a risky endeavor. Better to get more people’s input and hopefully make a collective choice. Also, humans too often play the blame-game if there isn’t a joint, transparent decision making process.

    But where would all these people convene to make a collective choice? How about during code review?