Difference between revisions of "Code review"

Revision as of 12:46, 12 October 2018

This page documents code review practices used for Software Heritage development.

WORK IN PROGRESS page

Code reviews (CRs) are strongly recommended for any code change, but not mandatory (nor enforced at the VCS level).
The CR workflow is implemented using Phabricator/Differential.
Explicitly suggest reviewer(s) when submitting new CR requests: either the most knowledgeable person(s) for the target code or the general Reviewers group.
Review anything you want: no matter the suggested reviewer(s), feel free to review any outstanding CR.
One LGTM is enough: feel free to approve any outstanding CR.
Review every day: CRs should be timely as fellow developers will wait for them. To make CRs team-sustainable each developer should allocate a fixed minimum amount of time for doing CR every (work ☺) day.

For more detailed suggestions (and much more) on the motivational and practical aspects of code reviews see Good reads below.

Good reads on different angles of code review:

Best practices (Palantir) ← comprehensive and recommended read, especially if you're short on time
Best practices (Thoughtbot)
Review checklist (Code Project)
Motivation: team culture (Google & FullStory)
Motivation: code quality (Coding Horror)
Motivation: humanizing peer reviews (Wiegers)

@@ Line 19: / Line 19: @@
 * '''[https://medium.com/palantir/code-review-best-practices-19e02780015f Best practices]''' (Palantir) ← comprehensive and recommended read, especially if you're short on time
+* [https://github.com/thoughtbot/guides/tree/master/code-review Best practices]''' (Thoughtbot)
 * [https://www.codeproject.com/Articles/524235/Codeplusreviewplusguidelines Review checklist] (Code Project)
 * [https://blog.fullstory.com/what-we-learned-from-google-code-reviews-arent-just-for-catching-bugs/ Motivation: team culture] (Google & FullStory)