3 ms·

Thoroughly agree that this is a human problem, but I think there are some amazing automated fixes for it, by incorporating code checkers into the continuous int

Thoroughly agree that this is a human problem, but I think there are some amazing automated fixes for it, by incorporating code checkers into the continuous integration pipeline. Take a look at how the CII best practices badgeapp [0] uses pronto [1] to run rubocop [2] automatically for free via CircleCI [3] and surface those results via the Github Status API and email. The whole point is to avoid having to manually complain in a code review. Instead, code reviews become a much higher level exercise discussing proper APIs and code structuring, not sphaghetti issues. [0] https://github.com/linuxfoundation/cii-best-practices-badge/commit/9dabce047f9a0ab60988aa39ef6524c7e71c7426#commitcomment-18915455 https://github.com/linuxfoundation/cii-best-practices-badge/... [1] https://github.com/mmozuras/pronto https://github.com/mmozuras/pronto [2] https://github.com/bbatsov/rubocop https://github.com/bbatsov/rubocop [3] https://circleci.com/ https://circleci.com/

ryandrake 10y ago
But you need to get agreement to implement/work with these automated fixes, and now you're back to it being a human problem. If you're 3rd engineer from the left proposing this, your human problem is convincing your team lead or management to invest in these tools. If you're team lead, your human problem is convincing the rest of the team the tools' value and getting them to buy-in to using them.
- dankohn1 10y ago
  Right, but as team lead, there's a huge advantage to implementing the tools once, and letting individual developers argue with the robot over coding style (i.e., when they override certain rules), vs. trying to do all code review manually.