Code Reviews Done Right

Posted by Martijn van Lambalgen on January 20, 2017

(This story originally appeared on https://martijnvanlambalgen.wordpress.com/2016/12/27/code-reviews/)

Recently, I’ve read several articles, and heard multiple discussions on the quality of code reviews. To order my thoughts on this topic, I decided to write down my own ideas. Perhaps it helps someone, or it might lead to even more discussions.

So, what is a good code review? Obviously it depends on the situation. How big is the code change, how important is the feature, how many people are going to read that particular piece of code in the future, are there deadlines, etc. Let’s focus on the situation where there’s a reasonable amount of time available (no emergency fixes), for a feature change that has average importance, in a medium-sized team. Note that when I talk about a ‘code review’, usually I don’t just do a review of the ‘code’, but also of all the other parts my colleague has worked on. According to me the reviewer should for example also look at design and documentation, and check whether the acceptance requirements for the story have been met.

Read more

About the author: Martijn van Lambalgen

Software engineer at TOPdesk interested in Software Architecture, Continuous Delivery and Web Security. Also wine drinker, good food lover, amateur baker and pleasure-seeker in general

More Posts

Committing to a story

Posted by Joppe Kroon on November 15, 2016

Lately I have been focusing upon subtly improving the way I commit my work to the repository, trying to write a story with my commits.

New team, new procedures

Not too long ago I transferred to a different development team within my company, and besides the different social culture I also encountered a distinctly different technical culture. I think this is mostly due to two things.

First, my new team lacks a dedicated tester, making each developer ultimately even more responsible for not only their own code, but also for the code that they test from the other developers. Second, the team is responsible for one of the real back bones of the product. In other words, mistakes tend to become showstopper problems that disqualify builds for use.

So, to make sure that the quality of our work is up to snuff, the team has introduced a mandatory peer review step before code is even considered ready for testing. This means that another developer of the team, who wasn’t involved in creating the story, has to sign off on the code as if it was his own. This has the added benefits of knowledge sharing as a side effect!

Going into the transfer to this team, I wasn’t really worried about my code being reviewed. Additionally, reviewing other people’s code is proving to be a great learning experience. But lately I have started to notice that maybe I could have made life a little easier for my colleagues.
Read more

About the author: Joppe Kroon

Senior (mostly Java) Developer at TOPdesk. Interests include code style and quality, recruiting the right people, and making sure we do the best we can for our users.

More Posts