Code Reviews

Ebe96461709771a430da9c7c58f9ae5f?s=47 David Majda
February 20, 2015

Code Reviews

We’ll look at code reviews both from the author’s and reviewer’s side. How to prepare a pull request that gets reviewed quickly and whose review is pleasant? And how to perform reviews that are both efficient and useful? Along the way we'll discuss some common anti-patterns in Jut’s code which good reviews can prevent.

Presented at internal Brews & Clues session at Jut.

Ebe96461709771a430da9c7c58f9ae5f?s=128

David Majda

February 20, 2015
Tweet

Transcript

  1. Code Reviews How to get an instant +1 and make

    reviewers love you David Majda (@dmajda) Feb 20, 2015
  2. Intro

  3. None
  4. Preparing PRs Reviewing PRs Code smells

  5. Preparing PRs

  6. Make PRs small

  7. Easy to review Don’t rot so quickly Less conflicts Less

    breakage
  8. Atomic Incremental Features / Refactoring / Formatting Controversial / Non-controversial

  9. None
  10. None
  11. Advise reviewers

  12. State Assumptions Focus areas

  13. None
  14. None
  15. Use commit messages

  16. http://tbaggery.com/2008/04/19/a-note-about-git-commit-messages.html

  17. Reviewing PRs

  18. Do I get it?

  19. Checklist

  20. High-level

  21. Best approach & design? Proper level of abstraction? Change isolated?

  22. Mid-level

  23. Already seen this? Easy to maintain? Easy to extend? Not

    overengineered? Boy scout rule?
  24. Low-level

  25. Are errors handled? Covered by tests? Follows coding style? Bugs:

    other occurrences?
  26. Code smells

  27. Long functions

  28. None
  29. No modularity

  30. No interfaces

  31. That’s it!