Difference between revisions of "Code review"

From Software Heritage Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Good reads)
(Good reads: add Atlassian article on knowledge sharing)
(3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
This page documents code review practices used for [[Software Heritage]] development.
 
This page documents code review practices used for [[Software Heritage]] development.
  
'''WORK IN PROGRESS page'''
+
== Guidelines ==
  
== Guidelines ==
+
Please adhere to the following guidelines to perform and obtain code reviews (CRs) in the context of Software Heritage development:
  
# Code reviews (CRs) are '''strongly recommended''' for any non-trivial code change, but not mandatory (nor enforced at the VCS level).
+
# '''CRs are strongly recommended''' for any non-trivial code change, but not mandatory (nor enforced at the VCS level).
 
# The CR [[Code review in Phabricator|'''workflow''']] is implemented using Phabricator/Differential.
 
# The CR [[Code review in Phabricator|'''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 [https://forge.softwareheritage.org/project/view/50/ reviewers] group (which is the [https://forge.softwareheritage.org/H18 default]).
 
# Explicitly '''suggest reviewer'''(s) when submitting new CR requests: either the most knowledgeable person(s) for the target code or the general [https://forge.softwareheritage.org/project/view/50/ reviewers] group (which is the [https://forge.softwareheritage.org/H18 default]).
Line 25: Line 25:
 
* [https://blog.fullstory.com/what-we-learned-from-google-code-reviews-arent-just-for-catching-bugs/ Motivation: team culture] (Google & FullStory)
 
* [https://blog.fullstory.com/what-we-learned-from-google-code-reviews-arent-just-for-catching-bugs/ Motivation: team culture] (Google & FullStory)
 
* [http://www.processimpact.com/articles/humanizing_reviews.pdf Motivation: humanizing peer reviews] (Wiegers)
 
* [http://www.processimpact.com/articles/humanizing_reviews.pdf Motivation: humanizing peer reviews] (Wiegers)
 +
* [https://www.atlassian.com/agile/software-development/code-reviews Motivation: sharing knowledge] (Atlassian)
  
 
== See also ==
 
== See also ==
  
 
* [[Code review in Phabricator]]
 
* [[Code review in Phabricator]]
 +
* [[Coding guidelines]]
  
  
 
[[Category:Software development]]
 
[[Category:Software development]]

Revision as of 18:24, 12 October 2018

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

Guidelines

Please adhere to the following guidelines to perform and obtain code reviews (CRs) in the context of Software Heritage development:

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

Good reads on various angles of code review:

See also