5 ms·

It's interesting that the author puts "downloading the code" in the exhaustive section. Is it really that much work to run git checkout? I routinely checkout c

by doix 4y ago

It's interesting that the author puts "downloading the code" in the exhaustive section. Is it really that much work to run git checkout? I routinely checkout code in PRs if I'm not familiar with that part of the codebase. I can navigate the codebase much quicker in my editor than in GitHub. Although GitHub is actually getting there with the semantic analysis of code and finding references and stuff, sometimes I just need to open 5 files in different splits to figure out what is going on.

eastbound 4y ago
On bad projects (which happens often now that node_modules directories are often gigabytes big), IntelliJ IDEA is super-long to index, which is required before being able to Cmd+Click on functions. And we have M1. But this is an example where usability impacts the author’s judgement. For me, UX testing is part of the initial step of code reviews, no technical review is necessary if we end up deciding to implement the story another way.
- gernb 4y ago
  Well, if the code reviewers had correctly disallowed adding all those deps to node_modules then you wouldn't be in this situation. :P I'm only half joking. :P
noam_k 4y ago
I think another factor here is if the reviewer is working on the same code base and the project has a complex environment to set up (e.g., a library compiled with custom flags), then `git stash` may not be enough to checkout the branch and run tests. (I am unfortunately guilty of creating some projects like that myself...) Docker can help with these cases, but not all projects are docker-oriented. I personally like running the code myself when reviewing, it's just not always practical.
- datavirtue 4y ago
  Yeah, reality: no one is going to download code and try to run it. It would take them all day to do code reviews. You are supposed to go live with your buggy shit soon, that's what the business values. Once it's live it gets tossed over the wall and the maintenance process begins where lower paid workers tinker with it until they have the skills to code-and-bail also.

by doix 4y ago

eastbound 4y ago

On bad projects (which happens often now that node_modules directories are often gigabytes big), IntelliJ IDEA is super-long to index, which is required before being able to Cmd+Click on functions. And we have M1. But this is an example where usability impacts the author’s judgement. For me, UX testing is part of the initial step of code reviews, no technical review is necessary if we end up deciding to implement the story another way.

gernb 4y ago
Well, if the code reviewers had correctly disallowed adding all those deps to node_modules then you wouldn't be in this situation. :P I'm only half joking. :P

noam_k 4y ago

I think another factor here is if the reviewer is working on the same code base and the project has a complex environment to set up (e.g., a library compiled with custom flags), then `git stash` may not be enough to checkout the branch and run tests. (I am unfortunately guilty of creating some projects like that myself...) Docker can help with these cases, but not all projects are docker-oriented. I personally like running the code myself when reviewing, it's just not always practical.

datavirtue 4y ago
Yeah, reality: no one is going to download code and try to run it. It would take them all day to do code reviews. You are supposed to go live with your buggy shit soon, that's what the business values. Once it's live it gets tossed over the wall and the maintenance process begins where lower paid workers tinker with it until they have the skills to code-and-bail also.