OverviewTeaching: 15 min
Exercises: 0 minQuestions
What are some best practices for code reviews?Objectives
Learn about effective practices for code reviews.
Learn what makes reviews work better and what can cause problems.
Learn what to look for when conducting a review.
Learn what to do when your code is being reviewed.
A successful strategy for code reviews requires balance between strictly documented processes and a non-threatening, collaborative environment. Highly regimented reviews can stifle productivity, yet lackadaisical processes are often ineffective. Establising a middle ground where the review can be efficient and effective while fostering open communication and knowledge-sharing is essential.
You don’t need to argue over code style and formatting issues. There are plenty of tools which can consistently highlight those things. Ensuring that the code is correct, understandable and maintainable is what’s important. Sure, style and formatting form part of that, but you should let the tool be the one to point out those things.
Some people are better at it than others. The more experienced may well spot more bugs, and that’s important. But more important is maintaining a positive attitude to code review in general and that means avoiding any ‘Us vs. Them’ attitude, or making reviewing code burdensome for someone.
No code is too short or too simple. If you review everything then nothing gets missed. What’s more, it makes it part of the process, a habit and not an after thought.
This is just as important for reviewers as well as submitters. Code reviews are not the time to get all alpha and exert your coding prowess. Nor do you need to get defensive. Go in to it with a positive attitude of constructive criticism and you can build trust around the process.
First of all, you have to understand the change you’re reviewing. If you don’t understand the change, you can’t positively review the change. A good commit message should contain the purpose of the change, and if necessary, how that change is being achieved. If, after reading the commit messages, you don’t understand what is going on, you should ask for the commit message to be improved.
When you understand the change, there are a few key levels of code review:
The first two of these are excellent candidates for automated checks – particularly as from a reviewer’s point of view, they’re really tedious to review, and from a reviewee’s point of view, they can feel like nitpicking. If the code has to meet such automated checks before it even gets to review, then the human element can be saved for the deep structural thought.
Comment on specific lines of code if you can to say where the code doesn’t meet standards or could be improved. General feedback on the change as a whole can typically be provided as a comment without referencing a specific line.
Assume best intentions, and try and address the code rather than the person writing the code. Criticism should never be personal.
Code reviews should be objective where possible. There are always subjective preferences in any code base, but such preferences should be decided at a team level beforehand, and then be well documented – by pointing to such documentation in the code review, the feeling of subjectivity can be avoided. As you come across undocumented preferences, determine that they are what the team wish to use, and document them.
The effectiveness of your reviews decreases after around an hour. So putting off reviews and doing them in one almighty session doesn’t help anybody. Set aside time throughout your day to coincide with breaks, so as not to disrupt your own flow and help form a habit. Your colleagues will thank you for it. Waiting can be frustrating and they can resolve issues quicker whilst the code is still fresh in their heads.
Code reviews in reasonable quantity, at a slower pace for a limited amount of time result in the most effective outcomes.
Don’t get picky, you don’t have to find an issue in every review.
Code review checklists ensure consistency – they make sure everyone is covering what’s important and common mistakes.
Most teams agree on standards such as code formatting and style. Make sure your changes adhere to these standards, using an automated tool - if available. This will avoid wasting time in the review identifying formatting problems.
Realise that a code review is not a battle, and try not to take criticism of your code personally. However, if criticism is personal, then you should say so.
Try and reduce conflict resulting from misunderstandings – see if you can clear up such misunderstandings, either in the review, in the commit messages or through talking it through with the reviewer.
Beyond 200 lines and the effectiveness of a review drops significantly. By the time you’re at more than 400 they become almost pointless.
Ensure that your commit messages explain what you are trying to achieve and why. Link to any related tickets, or the specification, using code review tools if necessary. Provide short, but useful commit messages and plenty of comments throughout your code. It’ll help the reviewer and you’ll get fewer issues coming back.
If you don’t currently do code reviews, and you’re not using pull requests for contributing code, and you don’t have documented standards, all of the above might seem a little daunting.
Not having standards is a bit of a chicken and egg situation – without reviewing code, often preferences exist but aren’t expressed anywhere (some of our preferences have been implicit for years until a new contributor comes along and does something off the wall, and we realise it needs to be explicit). Consider using code review process for improving our standards and best practices – all new standards must be accepted by at least two colleagues, and all best practice suggestions must get at least one +1. This is intended to ensure that no one feels that standards are imposed upon them.
One way to start might be to just ask a colleague to give you feedback on your recent commits. This might help to start discovering preferences, and then these can be documented. From there, you’ll likely find that code review tools provide a much easier way to provide feedback, because you can associate your comments with a line of code very easily.
If you’re part of a team that does not conduct regular code reviews, suggest to the team leader that they consider code reviews in order to improve the quality of the code.
Thanks to SmartBear for content and images
An code review strategy is essential for effective reviews
Don’t try to review too much code
A timely approach is better than rushing
Reviews are meant to be constructive
Make sure everyong is familiar and agrees on the ground rules