4 ms·

Same with code reviews. I wonder if AI could make code reviews more presentable. for example, with human code reviews, developers learn quickly not to visuall

by m463 6mo ago

Same with code reviews. I wonder if AI could make code reviews more presentable. for example, with human code reviews, developers learn quickly not to visually change code like reflowing code or comments, changing indent (where the tools can't suppress it), moving functions around or removing lines or other spurious changes. And don't refactor code needlessly. also, could break reviews up into two reviews - functional changes and cosmetic changes.

crooked-v 6mo ago
https://github.com/ReviewStage/stage-cli https://github.com/ReviewStage/stage-cli looks like an interesting start on that subject.
- whattheheckheck 6mo ago
  And nwave https://github.com/nWave-ai/nWave https://github.com/nWave-ai/nWave They have /nw-buddy to point you in the right direction Very nifty
jpollock 6mo ago
Do any refactorings in separate reviews, and say things like "REFACTOR_ONLY:", with a rule that none of the code changes behavior. That makes reviews a lot easier. The review starts from "nothing should be changing" and then reviewers can pattern match on that. Otherwise, the reviewer is re-evaluating every line of code to make sure nothing has changed. That's really hard to do properly. The version control systems I've worked with have allowed queues of changes, each one reviewed independently. As I'm developing, if I need a refactor, I go up a commit, refactor, send out for review, rebase my in progress work and continue. I send out a continual stream of "CLEANUP:" "REFACTOR_ONLY:", and similar changes with the final change being a lot smaller than a big monster of a change. Your reviewers will appreciate the effort. Plays the metric game (if you're working in that type of org) without being evil too.
jasonlotito 6mo ago
These are problems with a code review tool. Not a code change problem.
- m463 6mo ago
  but I've had to review ai code changes that did these kinds of things in a way that confounded the (decent) review tools. Also killed readability in general to the source files, apart from making sense of the review changees.
NanoWar 6mo ago
First Agent I used: Do a proper code review of the changeset, it adds comments in my merge requests. Then the junior devs paste these into their IDEs and loop forever :-P

by m463 6mo ago

crooked-v 6mo ago

https://github.com/ReviewStage/stage-cli https://github.com/ReviewStage/stage-cli looks like an interesting start on that subject.

whattheheckheck 6mo ago
And nwave https://github.com/nWave-ai/nWave https://github.com/nWave-ai/nWave They have /nw-buddy to point you in the right direction Very nifty

jpollock 6mo ago

Do any refactorings in separate reviews, and say things like "REFACTOR_ONLY:", with a rule that none of the code changes behavior. That makes reviews a lot easier. The review starts from "nothing should be changing" and then reviewers can pattern match on that. Otherwise, the reviewer is re-evaluating every line of code to make sure nothing has changed. That's really hard to do properly. The version control systems I've worked with have allowed queues of changes, each one reviewed independently. As I'm developing, if I need a refactor, I go up a commit, refactor, send out for review, rebase my in progress work and continue. I send out a continual stream of "CLEANUP:" "REFACTOR_ONLY:", and similar changes with the final change being a lot smaller than a big monster of a change. Your reviewers will appreciate the effort. Plays the metric game (if you're working in that type of org) without being evil too.

jasonlotito 6mo ago

These are problems with a code review tool. Not a code change problem.

m463 6mo ago
but I've had to review ai code changes that did these kinds of things in a way that confounded the (decent) review tools. Also killed readability in general to the source files, apart from making sense of the review changees.

NanoWar 6mo ago

First Agent I used: Do a proper code review of the changeset, it adds comments in my merge requests. Then the junior devs paste these into their IDEs and loop forever :-P