Message from JavaScript discussions

November 2020

— We already do that, but not so well performing it.


The problem is, what do you expect from a code review? that they actually checked out the branch and test it? :S

— With.. given that we may use TypeScript in the future, helps a lot more to check the code in the editor, than in any online platform like bitbucket or gitlab etc

Message permanent page

— Code review seems to be a time and energy consuming process.

— Code review by experienced devs can cover. Code duplication checks, performance checks in terms of Big O, optimization needs, side effects where not necessary. etc

Message permanent page

— The branch is only merged after everything is approved by the reviewer.

— So if there are problems then, reviewers know exactly where to fix the bug. So patches and repair code need not to be used

Message permanent page

— Welp. that means me

— Reviewers also keep a log on what they have approved for what and why. which is shared using a central medium to everyone in the dev team. This helps new devs to get to the pace and also them to also learn how the software is structured overall.
New code reviewers can also catch up fast with this

Message permanent page

— Not really if the organization knows how to do it. if you keep replacing these people for whatever reason, then you will just end up having developers as code reviewers with no history on the project. Then the organization will ofcourse find it energy and time consuming because no one knows what to do

Message permanent page

— You can try a week of 100% pair programming

— No need to do code review then