mattrebYour thoughts on Code Reviews
gsvFrom a scientific modeler perspective: Always trying to do 5 (or 4), but I’m having difficulties getting a culture of reviewing each other’s codes going. Many times I was asked to “just merge” months after submitting a PR.
In the context of operational or large community codes, 5 is usually strictly enforced. Weather services don’t appreciate broken code.
It was more a question of finding the time within the daily business of doing science. I suppose it is also a culture issue, the priority to do a review is usually low. In other words, there was de facto never a review.
Thanks, that’s actually interesting. I’ve found making #5 work with limited human resources / deadlines challenging, and wondered what to do. My answer in the past has been to lower review quality (reviewing faster) while keeping #5.
In my case the priority for reviews was high, but we were limited by the reviewers/developers ratio since most people would not do reviews…
I’m glad to hear that lack of time/resources for code reviews are more common.
Also for clarification: I was the author and requested reviews by my colleagues. In reverse, I did not receive requests to review PRs so far.
Tbh. I would really like such a review culture as it is already standard in scientific publishing and it would have avoided some obvious bugs we did encounter in the past. Having that said, as I did not receive any review at all and I would appreciate low(er) quality reviews better than none.