Programming

27986 readers

382 users here now

Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!

Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.

Hope you enjoy the instance!

Rules

Follow the programming.dev instance rules
Keep content related to programming in some way
If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos

Wormhole

Follow the wormhole through a path of communities !webdev@programming.dev

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

snowe@programming.dev

Ategon@programming.dev

UlrikHD@programming.dev

bugsmith@programming.dev

Spyro@programming.dev

What are code reviews even for? (newsletter.getdx.com)

submitted 1 day ago by codeinabox@programming.dev to c/programming@programming.dev

5 comments fedilink hide all child comments

If the answer were as simple as “finding defects,” then a fully automated review starts to sound inevitable (and appealing).

But if code review was also how teams shared knowledge, built collective ownership, spread architectural understanding, and taught junior engineers how experienced developers think, then the answer becomes much less obvious.

That’s the mistake I think many organizations are about to make, and the reason we need to rethink what code review is actually for.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] vrek@programming.dev 9 points 1 day ago

I think part of it is what you listed but I also think part of it is to review your update for its architecture or your decision making. For example we had a system which read serial numbers with a barcode scanner. For some reason the original designers decided the user had to scan the sn off the paperwork then off the device then the system does another automated scan off the device. The software verified the first two were identical but accepted anything for the third. After launch we discovered a bug where sometimes the third scan would report the scanners status instead of the serial number. Another developer was assigned to fix the bug. His solution was to filter out anything from the scanner that starts off "status:" this would pass all tests but it's poor design. In the review it was brought up that it should be verified against the first two, not just that it's not a status message.

That's the real value of code review. Not "defects" but inefficient solutions which technically work for the tests.