crafting better code reviews

@vaidehijoshi

why do I care so much about code reviews to begin with?

👩🏽‍💻

💭

😃

😍

🤗

👎

💪

😟

👩🏽‍💻

💭

👍

😝

🎉

👩🏽‍💻

💭

👍

LGTM

🚨

🔥

🚨

🔥

🚨

👩🏽‍🚒

🙈

oh no.

we really got this code review thing down!

lol j/k NOPE

we really got this code review thing down!

There must be a better way of doing code reviews!

...Right?

Theory

Practice

Theory

Code Complete

catching problems at the “lowest-value” stage

“quality gates”

🤔

- multiple 👀 on code

- 🔄 bug fixing

- fewer 🔥 when someone leaves

inspections

defect-detection

not correction

short reviews

Code Complete, 2nd Edition,
Steve McConnell

walk throughs

working meetings

Peer Reviews in Software: A Practical Guide,
Karl E. Wiegers

Practice

Energy

Substance

Who is doing the review?

How much time are they spending on it?

Energy

large commits/PR's, no context

unequal reviews (jr vs. sr)

second-class citizens

What exactly are they saying or doing while reviewing?

And how?

Substance

tons of comments < conversation

style/syntax vs. content/semantics

egotistical, rather than empathetic

👩🏽‍💻

commit hooks

PR templates

screenshots/gifs, explanations

linters

assign specific reviewers

small, concise, encapsulated work

small things

👩🏽‍💻

develop empathy on your team, review everyone

push for a culture that values vulnerability — both in actions and in words

call out the good stuff

have a conversation

big things

it👏er👏ate👏

iterate

I love code reviews in theory.

In practice, they are only as good as the group that’s responsible for conducting them in the right manner.