5 ms·
I think the deeper need is a "self-review" flow. People push AI-reviewed code like they wrote it. In the past, "wrote it" implies "reviewed it." With AI, that'
by philip1209 7mo ago
I think the deeper need is a "self-review" flow.
People push AI-reviewed code like they wrote it. In the past, "wrote it" implies "reviewed it." With AI, that's no longer true.
I advocate for GitHub and other code review systems to add a "Require self-review" option, where people must attest that they reviewed and approved their own code. This change might seem symbolic, but it clearly sets workflows and expectations.
- Tyr42 7mo agoHeck, doing a self review when you wrote the code catches stuff like forgetting debug prints.
- therealdrag0 7mo agoSelf review should also include adding guiding comments for other reviewers.
- fireant 7mo agoDo you add these into the code or into the review itself? I sometimes write these into the review, but I wonder if it's a useful information that should actually be inside the code that will get lost when the PR is merged
- therealdrag0 7mo agoInto the review is what I’m talking about. The diff is often a scattered collection of files missing context, and may have refactors that obscure behavioral changes. So there is reason to add comments that address a different readers understanding than the code rest.
- nothrabannosir 7mo ago(tangent of the decade : prefixing your debug printfs with NOCOMMIT helps catching them before commit :) sample precommit hook and GitHub ci action I wrote is at https://github.com/nobssoftware/nocommit https://github.com/nobssoftware/nocommit but it’s just a grep)
- jeremyjh 7mo agoWe have it in a checklist in PR template. I can’t imagine a fiat class feature that would be much more meaningful. It surprised me to learn there are developers who have to be reminded to review their own code and test it, but does seem to help.
- koinedad 7mo agoSelf review is #1
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- paxys 7mo agoIf someone was confident enough to push through an AI change without even reading/reviewing it themselves adding more buttons to the UI isn't going to change anything.
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- 8note 7mo agothe tooling doesnt make it easy currently. working at amazon, when I wanted to review code myself through the CR tool, Id still end up publishing it to the whole team and have to add some title shenanigans saying it was a self review or WIP and for others to not look at it yet
- kuekacang 7mo agoI've been lucky to discover git relatively late and sublime merge relatively soon. It seems like separating the concern of editing and reviewing code is making me consider each more as separate thing. It also makes me more comfortable figuring out how a project's pull acceptance are like (maybe due to how fast local ui is compared to web-based git). On the other hand, I can only run some basic git cli commands and can't quickly comprehend raw text-based diff, especially when encountering some linux patches from time to time.
- billbrown 7mo agoYes, underthinking is rampant. Glancing at "AI" output is not reviewing code: you have to grok it (in the Heinlein sense) in order to treat it as your own.
- userbinator 7mo agoYou have to grok it, and not just Grok it.
- cvak 7mo agoTBH, I do PRs on repos with no other devs just do do self-review, and I did that before AI.