Upgrade to Pro
— share decks privately, control downloads, hide ads and more …
Speaker Deck
Features
Speaker Deck
PRO
Sign in
Sign up for free
Search
Search
The Art of Code Review
Search
John Cinnamond
May 09, 2016
Programming
4
660
The Art of Code Review
A talk about Code Review, given at LRUG in May 2016
John Cinnamond
May 09, 2016
Tweet
Share
More Decks by John Cinnamond
See All by John Cinnamond
Go Lift
jcinnamond
0
2.1k
Theory
jcinnamond
0
1.8k
The Point of Objects
jcinnamond
0
110
Complexity
jcinnamond
1
230
Other Decks in Programming
See All in Programming
F#で自在につくる静的ブログサイト - 関数型まつり2025
pizzacat83
0
300
ASP.NETアプリケーションのモダナイズ インフラ編
tomokusaba
1
370
来たるべき 8.0 に備えて React 19 新機能と React Router 固有機能の取捨選択とすり合わせを考える
oukayuka
2
790
データの民主化を支える、透明性のあるデータ利活用への挑戦 2025-06-25 Database Engineering Meetup#7
y_ken
0
140
業務自動化をJavaとSeleniumとAWS Lambdaで実現した方法
greenflagproject
1
120
型付きアクターモデルがもたらす分散シミュレーションの未来
piyo7
0
790
2度もゼロから書き直して、やっとブラウザでぬるぬる動くAIに辿り着いた話
tomoino
0
160
SODA - FACT BOOK
sodainc
1
1k
都市をデータで見るってこういうこと PLATEAU属性情報入門
nokonoko1203
1
510
統一感のある Go コードを生成 AI の力で手にいれる
otakakot
0
3k
Passkeys for Java Developers
ynojima
3
860
機械学習って何? 5分で解説頑張ってみる
kuroneko2828
0
210
Featured
See All Featured
Being A Developer After 40
akosma
90
590k
Fantastic passwords and where to find them - at NoRuKo
philnash
51
3.3k
[RailsConf 2023 Opening Keynote] The Magic of Rails
eileencodes
29
9.5k
Easily Structure & Communicate Ideas using Wireframe
afnizarnur
194
16k
Unsuck your backbone
ammeep
671
58k
Fight the Zombie Pattern Library - RWD Summit 2016
marcelosomers
233
17k
Designing for humans not robots
tammielis
253
25k
Documentation Writing (for coders)
carmenintech
71
4.9k
Designing Experiences People Love
moore
142
24k
Building Flexible Design Systems
yeseniaperezcruz
328
39k
Design and Strategy: How to Deal with People Who Don’t "Get" Design
morganepeng
130
19k
Fashionably flexible responsive web design (full day workshop)
malarkey
407
66k
Transcript
@jcinnamond THE ART OF CODE REVIEW
Code review is weird
We usually value… Collaboration Teamwork Removing distractions
You write some code Someone else comes along and points
out all your mistakes
S talkhub Talks Issues Pull requests Settings Actually, `Collaboration` and
`Teamwork` are saying the same thing search This talk
Code reviews are… Confrontational Egoistic Expensive Disruptive
REVIEWS VS HUGS 0 75 150 225 300 REVIEWS
So why bother?
Studies show code review can… Detect bugs Save money Improve
communication Prevent global warming Source: some company selling code review software
If you're going to use code review… …use it well
trunk feature Pull Request
John's Top Tips for Great Code Review Joy Treat with
a healthy dose of scepticism
Motivations
Expectations, Outcomes, and Challenges of Modern Code Review Alberto Bacchelli
& Christian Bird (2013) International Conference on Software Engineering, pages 712-721
"What are the motivations and expectations for modern code review?"
DEVELOPERS' MOTIVATIONS FINDING DEFECTS CODE IMPROVEMENT ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER
0 100 200 300 400
John's Top Tip #1 Discuss the motivation as a team
CODE IMPROVEMENT UNDERSTANDING SOCIAL COMMUNICATION FINDING DEFECTS 0% 12.5% 25%
37.5% 50% Motivations Outcomes
John's Top Tip #2 Compare actual outcome with motivations
Creating a pull request
Think about the reviewer Do they know what I'm trying
to achieve? Are they aware of any constraints?
John's Top Tip #3 Write a description
In the description… Explain what the new feature is. Explain
why you made it. Suggest a path through the code.
John's Top Tip #4 Keep change size < 400 lines
Source: Cohen, Jason. (2006): The Best Kept Secrets of Peer Code Review.
Automated testing
John's Top Tip #5 Automatically run the test suite
John's Top Tip #6 Run linting tools (e.g., rubocop, hound)
Who should review?
To maximise defect detection, use 2 reviewers Source: Rigby, Peter
C, and Bird, Christian. (2013): Convergent Contemporary Software Peer Review Practices.
Who should review? Only the lead developer (Gatekeeper)
Who should review? Only senior developers (Gatekeepers, but more of
them)
Who should review? Developers at a similar level (True peer
review)
Who should review? Everyone
John's Top Tip #7 Get everyone involved in reviews (even
junior developers)
Reviewing code
Remember your motivation for reviewing
Valid comments (1) Problems with the code. i.e., actual defects
(not just things you don't like)
John's Top Tip #8 Explain the problem, don't criticise the
code
Valid comments (2) Questions about the code "I'm not sure
what this does"
S talkhub Talks Issues Pull requests Settings That isn't a
question? search This talk
Beware passive- aggressive questions Why did you use X here?
Why did you use X here - are you some kind of idiot?
Valid comments (2) Questions about the code "WWSMD?"
Valid comments (3) Improvements to the code "map would be
better than each"
John's Top Tip #9 Suggest improvements, don't dictate them
John's Top Tip #10 Justify your suggested improvements
Valid comments (4) Praise "this is nice! I'm going to
use this…"
Valid comments (5) Inconsistency with the rest of the codebase
Valid comments (6) Coding standard violations But only if there
is a standard to violate
John's Top Tip #11 Separate discussions on standards from code
review
Valid comments (7) There are no other valid comments. Code
review is not the place for this discussion.
Conversation is difficult via PR comments
John's Top Tip #13 Stop commenting. Talk.
John's Top Tip #14 Be yourself (unless you are a
monstrous pedant, in which case be someone better)
Example
def any_values?(hash) return hash.values.size >= 0 end
def any_values?(hash) return hash.values.size >= 0 end This is dumb
Doesn't explain the problem Feels bad, man
def any_values?(hash) return hash.values.size >= 0 end Never use return
☹ Why not? I'm being told off
def any_values?(hash) return hash.values.size >= 0 end Return is unnecessary
Maybe I should change it Your face is unnecessary
def any_values?(hash) return hash.values.size >= 0 end This is equivalent
to omitting the `return` The return is unnecessary
☹ def any_values?(hash) return hash.values.size >= 0 end The comparison
is wrong I did a wrong Why?
def any_values?(hash) return hash.values.size >= 0 end I think you
mean '> 0' Oops Go team!
def any_values?(hash) return hash.values.size >= 0 end This whole method
is pointless My work is pointless
def any_values?(hash) return hash.values.size >= 0 end What is the
point of this method? Why are they asking?
def any_values?(hash) return hash.values.size >= 0 end Why not ditch
this method and call `hash.values.any?` directly? …
def any_values?(hash) return hash.values.size >= 0 end <puts down pull
request, talks to developer?
The way you comment has a big impact
John's Top Tip #15 Avoid value judgements, even if they
about the code
Responding to comments
Try to address every comment
Try to create separate commits for each problem found
Tell the reviewer when you have addressed everything
Managing disagreement
John's Top Tip #16 If you disagree with any comments
talk about it
Don't reply with a new comment No good will come
from this
John's Top Tip #17 If you still disagree after talking,
ask someone else
Code review is inherently social Being "right" is not the
most important thing
Recap
Decide what you want from Code Review, as a team
1
Check that it actually delivers those benefits 2
Don't be shits to each other in pull requests 3
Thank you The Art of Code Review @jcinnamond LRUG 2016