Code Reviews

In addition to the generalized rules below, each team should consider having their own set of guidelines for code reviews. Things like "how fast code reviews progress", "who has domain knowledge that's relevant" and how you handle risk may be worth spelling out for your group.

Building an Inclusive Code Review Culture

Too many points to summarize, but:

To which I'd add: you should communicate expectations about who and how many people go on reviews. When you get a code review, you should also feel free to say "ask so-and-so to review".

Why Junior Devs Should Review Seniors' Commits

Having juniors review senior commits:

Unlearning Toxic Behaviors in a Code Review Culture — and What to do Instead

I appreciate the point about not adding tangentially related work to a PR "while someone is at it".

Paying attention to the distinction between opinion and fact a distinction is important. I'd add a distinction between personal opinion and team opinion. If your team always puts certain functionality in the X class, then just saying "please move this to the X class" is enough. Personal opinions merit the more involved discussion suggested here. Similarly, one HN commenter described their code review style as almost exclusively consisting of questions.

11 Proven Practices for More Effective, Efficient Peer Code Review

Results of a large scale of "lightweight" code review at Cisco. Some key points:

Code Review Review is the Manager's Job

Argues that managers need to spend time on making sure that their code review process is healthy, and is adequately training their developers. The manager should rarely comment on the first level technical issues, but should address how the process works.


Putting the I Back in IDE: Towards a Github Explorer

Imagine a system for editing and reviewing code where:

Every branch of every repo gets its own sandboxed directory. Your revision history in each branch, including uncommitted stuff, is persisted, as are build artifacts. When you switch contexts, each project is just as you left it.

Within your editor, you can pull up a global view of all your branches, your outstanding pull requests, and the pull requests you’re assigned to review. It’s one keystroke to view the summary for a pull, and one more to start editing any of its files right there under your cursor.

Code review happens entirely within the editor. You’re fed a series of diffs: one keystroke to approve, one keystroke to start editing. Dive in, make your changes, leave comments for the author, push, and move on.

Hard not to think this will be table stakes for development environments in 10 years. HN Comments (very noisy) have some suggestions other environments can do this, but it's unclear to me whether those comments are accurate.

Code Review That Isn't Boring

Part of a series on Iron, Jane Street's second generation code review tool

Scrutinizing Your Code in Style

Describes how Iron assigns a level of required scrutiny to each patch, based on the area of the code base it touches. The reviewer is informed of how much scrutiny the code requires, and Iron requires that multiple reviewers approve code that has higher scrutiny levels.


Awesome Code Review

Exhaustive list of code review resources, more than almost anyone should read.