I resist pulling branch for code reviews if it is someone I collaborate with regularly. Too tempting to play w/ code.
-
-
-
Replying to @jodosha
"Play" meaning run / modify the tests and play with things in the REPL to see how things work. Maybe also try out changes I want to propose
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @backus
I think that this playing is what I’m looking for stronger reviews.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @jodosha
I think it is fine to play with the code if you are reviewing code from someone you haven't worked with.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
I think playing with the code locally though can sort of be a small violation of trust though if it is someone you are collaborating with
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @backus
Sorry, but I don’t see why.
It’s not a matter of trust, but to increase the chances of spotting mistakes. This is good for the entire team.1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @jodosha
Like all engineering it depends on your priorities. If you are creating a high quality web framework without deadlines then probably fine.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
But even for high quality things at some point I ask "we should either just pair program or set some maximum effort for code reviews"
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
BTW I've been down the deep end of maximizing review quality and mistake detection. Ran every tool imaginable in CI + super thorough reviews
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
100% mutant, flay, flog, reek, rubocop, rubocop-rspec, as well as the type of reviews we are talking about where reviewer plays with code.
-
-
So if you are maximizing quality of any kind then
. If code being reviewed is likely to churn as the author learns what they want then
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.