Code Reviews That Don’t Suck: Tips for Reviewers and Submitters
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.63282/3050-922X.IJERET-V1I2P108Keywords:
Code review, software engineering, pull request, developer productivity, technical feedback, review process, GitHub, best practices, clean code, team collaborationAbstract
Although code reviews are more frequently seen as boring or divisive, when done well they might be a very powerful tool for improving these software quality & promoting their team collaboration. This article uses a human-centered approach to clarify the code review process and offers many useful guidance for both submitters and reviewers to improve their output and reduce pain during reviews. The book opens by stressing common frustrations such as unclear comments, too much inspection, or too quick approvals and clarifies how these elements not only stop development but also erode team trust. It then offers sensible recommendations for development: how reviewers may provide polite, helpful feedback that is really more valuable, and how submitters might create more effective pull requests to support more quick reviews? Effective and poor techniques are clarified by concrete examples and a pragmatic case study, which also show how modest changes in these expectations and communication might produce their major results. While underlining that the human component effective communication, empathy, and the mutual objectives truly improves the review experience the study examines the relevance of technology and processes. These suggestions are meant to foster a culture of learning, mutual respect, and continuous growth regardless of your level of experience as a developer tired of negative review cycles or a new hire trying to fit into your team's process. In the end, code reviews could become chances for their development, knowledge sharing, and a notable improvement in team morale and software quality rather than negative ones
References
[1] Cohen, Jason, Steven Teleki, and Eric Brown. Best kept secrets of peer code review. Smart Bear Incorporated, 2006.
[2] Platt, David S. Why software sucks--and what you can do about it. Addison-Wesley Professional, 2007.
[3] Reagle, Joseph Michael. Reading the comments: Likers, haters, and manipulators at the bottom of the web. Mit Press, 2015.
[4] Ha, Elizabeth, and David Wagner. "Do android users write about electric sheep? examining consumer reviews in google play." 2013 IEEE 10th Consumer Communications and Networking Conference (CCNC). IEEE, 2013.
[5] Tsay, Jason, Laura Dabbish, and James Herbsleb. "Let's talk about it: evaluating contributions through discussion in GitHub." Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGSOFT international symposium on foundations of software engineering. 2014.
[6] Sai Prasad Veluru. “Real-Time Fraud Detection in Payment Systems Using Kafka and Machine Learning”. JOURNAL OF RECENT TRENDS IN COMPUTER SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING ( JRTCSE), vol. 7, no. 2, Dec. 2019, pp. 199-14
[7] Brown, Stephen. "I have seen the future and it sucks: reactionary reflections on reading, writing and research." European Business Review 24.1 (2012): 5-19.
[8] Jani, Parth. "UM Decision Automation Using PEGA and Machine Learning for Preauthorization Claims." The Distributed Learning and Broad Applications in Scientific Research 6 (2020): 1177-1205.
[9] Williams, Alex C., et al. "Mercury: Empowering Programmers' Mobile Work Practices with Microproductivity." Proceedings of the 32nd Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology. 2019.
[10] Khan, Selim M., James Gomes, and Daniel R. Krewski. "Radon interventions around the globe: A systematic review." Heliyon 5.5 (2019).
[11] Freeman, Eric, et al. Head First Design Patterns: A Brain-Friendly Guide. " O'Reilly Media, Inc.", 2004.
[12] Allam, Hitesh. Exploring the Algorithms for Automatic Image Retrieval Using Sketches. Diss. Missouri Western State University, 2017.
[13] Trivedi, Chirag, Michel J. Cervantes, and Ole G. Dahlhaug. "Experimental and numerical studies of a high-head Francis turbine: A review of the Francis-99 test case." Energies 9.2 (2016): 74.
[14] Kupunarapu, Sujith Kumar. "AI-Enabled Remote Monitoring and Telemedicine: Redefining Patient Engagement and Care Delivery." International Journal of Science And Engineering 2.4 (2016): 41-48.
[15] Kraft, Matthew A., and Allison F. Gilmour. "Can principals promote teacher development as evaluators? A case study of principals’ views and experiences." Educational administration quarterly 52.5 (2016): 711-753.
[16] Jani, Parth. "Modernizing Claims Adjudication Systems with NoSQL and Apache Hive in Medicaid Expansion Programs." JOURNAL OF RECENT TRENDS IN COMPUTER SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING (JRTCSE) 7.1 (2019): 105-121.
[17] Liu, Ming, Lei Tan, and Shuliang Cao. "A review of prewhirl regulation by inlet guide vanes for compressor and pump." Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part A: Journal of Power and Energy 233.6 (2019): 803-817.
[18] Sai Prasad Veluru. “Optimizing Large-Scale Payment Analytics With Apache Spark and Kafka”. JOURNAL OF RECENT TRENDS IN COMPUTER SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING ( JRTCSE), vol. 7, no. 1, Mar. 2019, pp. 146–163
[19] Tiainen, Jonna, et al. "Flow control methods and their applicability in low-Reynolds-number centrifugal compressorsa review." International Journal of Turbomachinery, Propulsion and Power 3.1 (2017): 2.
[20] Arugula, Balkishan, and Sudhkar Gade. “Cross-Border Banking Technology Integration: Overcoming Regulatory and Technical Challenges”. International Journal of Emerging Research in Engineering and Technology, vol. 1, no. 1, Mar. 2020, pp. 40-48
[21] Fuller, Thomas, et al. "What affects authors’ and editors’ use of reporting guidelines? Findings from an online survey and qualitative interviews." PLoS One 10.4 (2015): e0121585.
[22] Papay, John P., and Susan Moore Johnson. "Is PAR a good investment? Understanding the costs and benefits of teacher peer assistance and review programs." Educational Policy 26.5 (2012): 696-729.
