Code reviews are an essential part of web development, as they help ensure the quality, security, and performance of the code. However, code reviews can also cause delays and frustrations if they are not done efficiently and effectively. In this article, you will learn some tips and best practices to avoid bottlenecks in code reviews for web applications.
One of the main causes of bottlenecks in code reviews is the lack of clear and consistent standards for coding style, formatting, documentation, testing, and error handling. Without these standards, reviewers and developers may have different expectations and preferences, leading to unnecessary debates and revisions. To avoid this, you should define and document the standards that apply to your web application project, and make sure that everyone follows them. You can also use tools like linters, formatters, and code analyzers to automate and enforce some of the standards.
A smooth and efficient development process depends on avoiding bottlenecks in code reviews. -Establish clear goals -Make use of automated tools -Commits should be broken down into smaller pieces Proactively assign reviewers
To mitigate bottlenecks in code reviews for web applications, begin by equitably distributing the review workload among team members. Establish transparent expectations and deadlines, prioritizing reviews according to their impact and urgency. Automate repetitive tasks to streamline the process and save time. Foster proactive communication among developers, encouraging them to address concerns promptly. Cultivate a culture of continuous improvement and constructive feedback, promoting collaboration and learning. Furthermore, leverage code review tools and templates to ensure consistency and efficiency throughout the review process.
In my experience, woks very well having a template. This template should include at least: The ticket or task referred to the Code Review in order to have context. A link with automation tools passed (Jenkins, Sonar, etc) for checking that has passed. An explanation of the manual tests done, and a screenshot of the results Checks of conditions necessary to pass (no blockers, no dependencies, no snapshot versions in pom.xml etc) Each company is different, but these are quite common, and with an agreed template (which can be done automatically with tools like Bitbucket), the work of reviewers will be easier.
Great topic to think about In my opinion, the first thing is to test the code locally, if your colleague made the code you should get his branch in your local environment and test the rules that have been written on the card, after seeing the code working then you can go to revise the merge request to see if it is following the standards addressed with the team includes: pipelines, performance, automated tests etc... Some people use the pyramid schema to review code which is a good topic to search and learn.
Another way to avoid bottlenecks in code reviews is to use pull requests and branch policies. Pull requests are a feature of version control systems like Git that allow developers to submit their code changes for review and approval before merging them into the main branch. Branch policies are rules that define the conditions for merging a pull request, such as requiring a minimum number of reviewers, passing certain tests, or resolving conflicts. By using pull requests and branch policies, you can ensure that the code is reviewed in a timely and orderly manner, and that only quality code is merged into the main branch.
A common mistake that can lead to bottlenecks in code reviews is to submit large and infrequent changes that are hard to review and test. Large changes can introduce more bugs, conflicts, and dependencies, and require more time and effort to understand and verify. Infrequent changes can also create gaps and inconsistencies between the code in the main branch and the code in the pull request, making it harder to merge and deploy. To avoid this, you should review small and frequent changes that are easier to review and test. You should also break down complex features into smaller and simpler tasks, and commit and push your code regularly.
Another important aspect of avoiding bottlenecks in code reviews is to provide constructive and respectful feedback. Constructive feedback is feedback that focuses on the code, not the person, and that offers suggestions and explanations, not criticisms and demands. Respectful feedback is feedback that is polite, courteous, and appreciative, not rude, aggressive, or dismissive. By providing constructive and respectful feedback, you can foster a positive and collaborative code review culture, and avoid conflicts and resentments that can slow down the process.
To avoid bottlenecks in code reviews, automation and streamlining are essential. Automation can reduce human errors, save time, and improve consistency. Streamlining can simplify and optimize the workflow, and eliminate unnecessary steps and overhead. Examples of automation and streamlining include pre-commit hooks to run linters, formatters, and tests before committing your code; continuous integration and continuous delivery tools to run tests, build, and deploy code automatically; code review tools and platforms to manage and track pull requests, comments, and approvals; code review checklists and templates to guide and standardize reviews; and code review metrics and feedback to monitor and improve performance.
All code must be revised for an human of course, but we can make that this revision is the last step. What I mean is, as the article says we can use tools to verify the syntax, compilation, quality code and so on (with tools like Jenkins, Sonar, etc) and the human revision only must be possible after passing this checks.
Rotate Reviewers - Avoid having a single bottleneck by rotating reviewers regularly. This not only distributes the workload but also helps ensure that different perspectives are considered during the review process.
Something that seems obvious but is almost always forgotten. Please, appreciate the task of reviewing. Because sometimes I see leads complaining that people don't review or does after hours of days, but when somebody does regularly I don't see the recognition. If something is valuable, recognize and appreciate the people who do as good team players. Because if not, they will focus only in coding as the only "useful task".