review code assignment

Managing code review settings for your team

You can decrease noise for your team by limiting notifications when your team is requested to review a pull request.

Who can use this feature?

Team maintainers and organization owners can configure code review settings.

Code review settings are available in all public repositories owned by an organization, and all private repositories owned by organizations on GitHub Team, GitHub Enterprise Server, and GitHub Enterprise Cloud. For more information, see " GitHub’s plans ."

In this article

About code review settings.

To reduce noise for your team and clarify individual responsibility for pull request reviews, you can configure code review settings.

• Team notifications
• Auto assignment

About team notifications

When you choose to only notify requested team members, you disable sending notifications to the entire team when the team is requested to review a pull request if a specific member of that team is also requested for review. This is especially useful when a repository is configured with teams as code owners, but contributors to the repository often know a specific individual that would be the correct reviewer for their pull request. For more information, see " About code owners ."

About auto assignment

When you enable auto assignment, any time your team has been requested to review a pull request, the team is removed as a reviewer and a specified subset of team members are assigned in the team's place. Code review assignments allow you to decide whether the whole team or just a subset of team members are notified when a team is requested for review.

When code owners are automatically requested for review, the team is still removed and replaced with individuals unless a branch protection rule is configured to require review from code owners. If such a branch protection rule is in place, the team request cannot be removed and so the individual request will appear in addition to the team. Once the individual completes their review, the team is removed.

Routing algorithms

Code review assignments automatically choose and assign reviewers based on one of two possible algorithms.

The round robin algorithm chooses reviewers based on who's received the least recent review request, focusing on alternating between all members of the team regardless of the number of outstanding reviews they currently have.

The load balance algorithm chooses reviewers based on each member's total number of recent review requests and considers the number of outstanding reviews for each member. The load balance algorithm tries to ensure that each team member reviews an equal number of pull requests in any 30 day period.

Any team members that have set their status to "Busy" will not be selected for review. If all team members are busy, the pull request will remain assigned to the team itself. For more information about user statuses, see " Personalizing your profile ."

Configuring team notifications

In the upper-right corner of GitHub, select your profile photo, then click Your organizations .

Click the name of your organization.

Under your organization name, click Teams .

Click the name of the team.

At the top of the team page, click Settings .

In the left sidebar, click Code review .

Select Only notify requested team members.

Click Save changes .

Configuring auto assignment

Select Enable auto assignment .

Under "How many team members should be assigned to review?", select the dropdown menu and choose a number of reviewers to be assigned to each pull request.

Under "Routing algorithm", use the dropdown menu and choose which algorithm you'd like to use. For more information, see " Routing algorithms ."

Optionally, to always skip certain members of the team, select Never assign certain team members . Then, select one or more team members you'd like to always skip.

Optionally, to include members of child teams as potential reviewers when assigning requests, select Child team members .

Optionally, to count any members whose review has already been requested against the total number of members to assign, select Count existing requests .

Optionally, to remove the review request from the team when assigning team members, select Team review request .

Disabling auto assignment

Deselect Enable auto assignment .

Code Review — The Ultimate Guide

By Assaf Elovic

The ultimate guide for building your team’s code review process

After conducting hundreds of code reviews, leading R&D teams and pushing several unintentional bugs myself, I’ve decided to share my conclusions for building the ultimate code review process for your team.

This article assumes you know what a code review is. So if you don’t, click here for a great intro.

Let’s quickly state some straightforward reasons as to why you should do code reviews:

• Can help reduce bugs in code.
• Validate that all coding requirements have been filled.
• An effective way to learn from peers and get familiar with the code base.
• Helps maintain code styling across the team.
• Team cohesion — encourage developers to talk to each other on best practices and coding standards.
• Improves overall code quality due to peer pressure.

However, code reviews can be one of the most difficult and time-consuming parts of the software development process.

We’ve all been there. You might have waited days until your code was reviewed. Once it was reviewed you started a ping pong with the reviewer of resubmitting your pull request. All the sudden you’re spending weeks going back and forth. You are context switching between new features and old commits that still need polishing.

If the code review process is not planned right, it could have more cost than value.

This is why it’s extremely important to structure and build a well-defined process for code reviews within your engineering team.

In general, you’ll need to have in place well-defined guidelines for both the reviewer and reviewee, prior to creating a pull request and while it’s being reviewed. More specifically:

Define perquisites for creating pull requests.

I’ve found that the following greatly reduces friction:

• Make sure code compiles successfully.
• Read and annotate your code.
• Build and run tests that validate the scope of your code.
• All code in codebase should be tested.
• Link relevant tickets/items in your task management tool (JIRA for example) to your pull request.
• Do not assign a reviewer until you’ve finalized the above.

Define reviewee responsibilities

While the reviewer is last in the chain of merging your PR, the better it’s handed over by the reviewee, the fewer risks you’ll run into in the long term. Here are some guidelines that can greatly help:

• Communicate with your reviewer — Give your reviewers background about your task. Since most of us pull request authors have likely been reviewers already, simply put yourself in the shoes of the reviewer and ask, “How could this be easier for me?”
• Make smaller pull requests — Making smaller pull requests is the best way to speed up your review time. Keep your pull requests small so that you can iterate more quickly and accurately. In general, smaller code changes are also easier to test and verify as stable. When a pull request is small, it’s easier for the reviewers to understand the context and reason with the logic.
• Avoid changes during the code review — Major changes in the middle of code review basically resets the entire review process. If you need to make major changes after submitting a review, you may want to ship your existing review and follow-up with additional changes. If you need to make major changes after starting the code review process, make sure to communicate this to the reviewer as early in the process as possible.
• Respond to all actionable code review feedback — Even if you don’t implement their feedback, respond to it and explain your reasoning. If there’s something you don’t understand, ask questions inside or outside the code review.
• Code reviews are discussions, not dictation — You can think of most code review feedback as a suggestion more than an order. It’s fine to disagree with a reviewer’s feedback but you need to explain why and give them an opportunity to respond.

Define reviewer responsibilities

Since the reviewer is last in the chain before merging the code, a great part of the responsibility is on him for reducing errors. The reviewer should:

• Be aware to the task description and requirements.
• Make sure to completely understand the code.
• Evaluate all the architecture tradeoffs.
• Divide your comments into 3 categories: Critical, Optional and Positive. The first are comments that the developer must accept to change, and the latter being comments that let the developer know your appreciation for nice pieces of code.

Also, avoid many comments and use Github review instead (see example below).

When you have several comments, you should use the review option in Github, instead of comment each of them separately, and notify the developer (PR owner) when you’re done.

Finally, I’ve found that asking the following questions is a great tool for an overall better and easier reviewing process:

• Am I having difficulty in understanding this code?
• Is there any complexity in the code which could be reduced by refactoring?
• Is the code well organized in a package structure which makes sense?
• Are the class names intuitive and is it obvious what they do?
• Are there any classes which are notably large?
• Are there any particularly long methods?
• Do all the method names seem clear and intuitive?
• Is the code well documented?
• Is the code well tested?
• Are there ways in which this code could be made more efficient?
• Does the code meet our teams styling standards?

There are various effective and different code review practices that vary based on team’s needs. So assume this is my personal opinion and that there are other ways that might work for your team. In the end, building such a sensitive process should be subjective to your companies goals, team’s culture and overall R&D structure.

If you have any questions or feedback for improving these guidelines, please feel free to add a comment below!

freeCodeCamp Programming Tutorials: Python, JavaScript, Git & More

If you read this far, thank the author to show them you care. Say Thanks

Learn to code for free. freeCodeCamp's open source curriculum has helped more than 40,000 people get jobs as developers. Get started

DEV Community

Posted on Nov 4, 2021 • Originally published at swarmia.com

16 best practices to make your code reviews better

Code reviews are a widely accepted best practice for software development teams. In this post, we'll cover why the most successful teams use code reviews, how to adopt them in your development process, and what the best practices are.

The goals of code reviews are:

• Sharing knowledge: The depth of know-how shared depends on the thoroughness of the review, but some amount of information will always be transferred. The knowledge can be general tips about the framework or programming language or invaluable domain-specific information bits.
• Spreading ownership: Code reviews have a positive impact on mutual code ownership. It's easy to end up in a situation where one developer always deals with a certain part of the codebase because they're most familiar with it. It might be a short-term win but is often a long-term loss. When ownership is shared, teams become more motivated and autonomous.
• Unifying development practices: Every developer has their own tendencies and ways to implement software. Code reviews help to narrow the gap between individual development styles and make the codebase more unified. Unification happens through high-level discussions about architecture and software design and via micro-level continuous integration checks, such as coding style enforcement.
• Quality control: Studies have shown that code reviews can help with catching defects, but even more importantly, they surface software design issues while they are still relatively easy to change.

Adopting code reviews

It's crucial to set the review process right. At worst, code reviews might feel like a hindrance. At best, code reviews help to sustain a good, stable team performance for many years.

If your organization is new to code reviews, introducing them will be a big change in the development process. Whenever implementing changes to ways of working, it's a good idea to ensure that everyone agrees on the process and has had the chance to contribute to the decision. This will cause less friction.

You, as a team or an organization, should agree on the philosophy and motivation behind code reviews before implementing them. You can write down an internal "what's a good code review" document together or refer to existing guides. It's a practical way to make sure everyone is aware of the whys.

Social relationships can't be ignored when talking about peers giving feedback about each other’s work. There are no silver bullets. It's hard work that requires each individual's contribution. To have the best chance of success, make sure to thoroughly discuss and educate your team about communication practices.

Best practices for code reviews

Blog posts about review practices often mention smaller details about branch names, commit message lengths, etc. While those tips are valuable too, this post focuses on more general recommendations.

There are multiple perspectives to a code review process: the author's, the reviewer's, and the team's point of view. Each party has an equally important role in the process. Some best practices apply only to the author or the reviewer, but many of them are important for everyone in the team.

Let's go through what those practices are. We'll focus on GitHub and pull request (PR) oriented review processes, but many of the tips apply in general as well.

1. Decide on a process

Responsibility will bounce between the author and the reviewer(s). The more explicit the review process, the less likely the ball is dropped by any party.

For example, our internal PR guidelines look something like this:

• DRAFT You can open a PR in a draft state to show progress or request early feedback.
• The review is done by another team member.
• Usually, there's no need to request a review; Swarmia automatically notifies the team. A manual review request can be useful if you, for example, want to request a design review from a certain designer.
• It's polite to have the PR ready so that you're not about to rebase everything 5 times while the reviewer tries to keep up.
• Preferably, create new commits after the review.
• You can directly commit suggestions from the GitHub UI.
• APPROVED The author is responsible for merging their own PR.

Yours might look different, but as long as the team agrees on the process, all is good.

2. Focus on the right things

To maintain code review standards across developers, it's a good idea to have guidelines for what to focus on in code reviews. Here's what we recommend focusing on:

• Functionality : Does the code behave as the PR author likely intended? Does the code behave as users would expect?
• Software design : Is the code well-designed and fitted to the surrounding architecture?
• Complexity : Would another developer be able to easily understand and use the code?
• Tests : Does the PR have correct and well-designed automated tests?
• Naming : Are names for variables, functions, etc. descriptive?
• Comments : Are the comments clear and useful?
• Documentation : Did the author also update relevant documentation?

Developers shouldn't spend their time reviewing things that can be automatically checked. More on that in "Use continuous integration effectively" and "Delegate nit-picking to a computer" .

3. Discuss the high-level approach early

Before jumping into coding a complex feature, it's beneficial to discuss the high-level approach first. Usually, this is done when planning the feature.

It's not nice for anyone if a PR ends up in a complete rewrite because the approach wasn't discussed beforehand. Rewrites of pull requests do happen every once in a while, but it's a sign that you might want to talk more before the implementation.

Sometimes a proof-of-concept implementation is needed to ignite the discussion. An effective way to get started is to open a draft PR of the approach and make the architecture decision based on the gained information.

4. Optimize for the team

This idea is explained well in Google's Engineering Practices document:

We optimize for the speed at which a team of developers can produce a product together, as opposed to optimizing for the speed at which an individual developer can write code.

Speedy reviews increase team performance in multiple ways: iteration becomes faster, developers don't need to do time-costly context switches as often, etc. Make sure the team understands the implications of fast reviews and agrees on a suitable maximum time for responding to a PR. The key is to minimize the response lag between the author and the reviewer, even if the whole review process takes long. For example, it might be invaluable for the author to know that their PR will be reviewed, for example, tomorrow morning.

That said, developers shouldn't interrupt their focus to do reviews. Instead, they should prioritize them whenever there's a fitting gap—for example after lunch.

Review speed is definitely not solely the reviewer's responsibility—the author has an important role too. The easier it is to pick a pull request and review it, the faster the work flows. Our help article "Review Code Faster" covers how to leverage Swarmia to speed up reviews.

5. Default to action

Sometimes reviews can stall for various reasons. During those times, you should have a bias for action. One can approve a PR even if there's some input left for the author to consider.

If a tech decision lingers and work becomes blocked, deciding something relatively quickly is better than slowly concluding to an "ideal" decision. Reserve enough time for technical decisions, but move on before you reach analysis paralysis. Developers should be inclined to merge code instead of primarily focusing on poking holes in the implementation.

6. Keep pull requests small

Smaller batches are easier to design, test, review, and merge. There are studies [1] [2] about the optimal amount of changed lines, but it's not an exact science. Google's recommendations put it well:

There are no hard and fast rules about how large is “too large.” 100 lines is usually a reasonable size for a CL, and 1000 lines is usually too large, but it’s up to the judgment of your reviewer. The number of files that a change is spread across also affects its “size.” A 200-line change in one file might be okay, but spread across 50 files it would usually be too large.

It's almost always possible to split a large change into smaller chunks—for example, with a separate refactoring PR that sets the stage for a cleaner implementation. Practicing slicing also helps to detect minimal shippable increments of your product.

Feature gates or feature flags might be necessary to gain the ability to ship half-ready product features along with the existing ones.

7. Foster a positive feedback culture

Effective communication, in general, is really hard. Giving feedback about a colleague's work is one of the most challenging forms of communication. Acknowledge this in code reviews.

Here's a list of suggestions to improve discussions in code reviews:

• Give feedback about the code, not about the author.
• Pick your battles.
• Accept that there are multiple correct solutions to a problem.
• You're in the same boat.
• PR authors are humans with feelings (except dependabot 🤖).
• Provide reasons, not feelings, to support your position.
• Use the "Yes, and..." technique to keep an innovative atmosphere. It can be an ungracious pattern to dismiss fresh and fragile ideas in a draft PR stage.
• Keep the feedback balanced with positive comments. It's always delightful to receive praise from the reviewer.

If the pull request discussion becomes heated, schedule a call to discuss the topic. It usually helps to relieve the tension.

8. Use continuous integration effectively

GitHub Actions and status checks are widely used for building a robust CI pipeline. However, no matter the tools, it's crucial to invest in setting up a CI solution to automate as many quality checks as possible.

Automated checks allow reviewers to focus on more important topics such as software design, architecture, and readability. Checks can include tests, test coverage, code style enforcements, commit message conventions, static analysis, and much more.

A variety of metrics produced by continuous integration can help the reviewer to quantify the quality of a PR. Test coverage and code complexity metrics might reveal interesting insights that otherwise would be hard to estimate. These metrics don't necessarily need to be hard pass or fail checks but rather additional data for the review process.

Instead of slowing down the review process to catch more bugs, try to improve the automated checks to enable fast movement.

9. Delegate nit-picking to a computer

Whenever a reviewer spends their time nit-picking on small details, consider if it could be an automated check. Automatic check will always be enforced, while the human process relies on the reviewers' memories and moods to reject an anti-pattern.

For example, our ESLint rules enforce a consistent usage of certain terminology across the product. This is far more effective than documentation that would list the correct spelling of each word.

Code formatting is an example of a controversial topic in which almost all solutions are correct. Spending time debating stylistic choices rarely provides much value to the product, as long as a set of rules are adopted. Consistent unpleasing styles (to some individuals) are better than a mixture of multiple styles.

Your team can also adopt pre-existing practices, for example, a TypeScript project could adopt Prettier defaults instead of re-inventing their own.

10. Communicate explicitly

When reviewing a piece of code, be explicit about the action you request from the author. Let's say a reviewer has commented, "This could be done in Postgres in favor of application code" on a line of code. Are they requesting a change, suggesting to refactor it later, or just making the author aware of other solutions? It's often hard to judge. GitHub provides tools to be more explicit: for example, "Request changes" in a review.

Tip for the PR author: dismissing a review resets the pull request state to indicate that the reviewer can review again. It's up to you, the PR author, to decide if it feels important enough to use the feature, but especially in remote teams, it might help to make the process even more explicit.

11. Use explicit review requests

Review requests in GitHub are a convenient way to let others know that your code is ready for review. While a review can be requested manually, we recommend setting up a CODEOWNERS file to automate requesting a review. The method is robust and doesn't rely on individual authors remembering to request reviews.

Reviews can also be requested from a team, via CODEOWNERS or manually, which distributes the responsibility among team members. Make sure reviews are done evenly by all developers instead of siloing reviews to a single person.

12. Review your own code

Before submitting a PR for a review, go through the changes yourself. This helps to catch accidentally included changes, typos, and other simple mistakes that potentially waste the reviewer's time.

13. Document as much as possible in code

When receiving a comment or suggestion, aim for documenting the discussion in code. If the reviewer is not sure what the validateUsers function does, elaborate on the functionality ideally by renaming the function or writing a comment in the code. This way, the next developer that reads the code will understand the functionality without reading the PR discussions.

In some cases, the author can copy-paste their PR discussion response as is to comment in the code.

14. Write clear PR descriptions

The reviewer forms a mental picture of a pull request from multiple information sources: feature planning, description in the issue tracker, PR description, commit messages, chat history, etc. The more coherent the picture is, the faster and higher quality the review is. Decide on the team’s preferred channels to communicate certain information.

At Swarmia, we use PR descriptions to fill the technical gaps that the Jira issue description didn't cover. The additional details often include information such as what setup is needed to test the PR, surprising implementation details, and anything that makes the reviewer's job smoother. There are also other ways to add information: code comments, commit messages, commenting on individual lines in a PR as the author, etc.

Demo in any visual form is a nice touch. The format can be a screenshot, a screen capture, terminal output pasted in a code block, or anything that captures the change well. GitHub supports both videos and GIFs in the PR descriptions.

In addition to a static demo video, it's a great practice to build preview versions of your application per PR branch. The ability to interactively test the application preview without setting up anything in a local development environment saves time and increases the likelihood of someone manually testing a pull request.

Remember that the fidelity of descriptions required depends on the context.

You, as a team, need to figure out the perfect balance between explaining nothing or everything.

GitHub also supports issue and pull request templates if you want to standardize parts of the descriptions.

15. Use the shared repository model

For most private repositories, we recommend starting with the Shared repository model :

In the shared repository model, collaborators are granted push access to a single shared repository and topic branches are created when changes need to be made.

This model makes many aspects of the review process in GitHub simpler than the forking model that is popular among open-source projects.

16. Keep discussions public

It's convenient to have a quick chat about a pull request in the office, but be mindful of colleagues working remotely. It's polite to add a summary of face-to-face discussion as a PR comment.

Pull request discussions are searchable and easily accessible by all developers. They act as a history log of discussion which might be incredibly valuable when debugging a production incident later on.

Wrapping up

That concludes our complete guide for code reviews.

If you're interested in improving your code reviews beyond what GitHub can offer, take a look at what we've built in Swarmia . PR view enables convenient access to your open pull requests, Slack notifications help your teams review code faster, and working agreements help you follow the practices that you've agreed on together with your team.

Additional reading

• Google's Engineering Practices
• How to Make Good Code Reviews Better by Gergely Orosz
• How to Make Your Code Reviewer Fall in Love with You by Michael Lynch
• Code Review Guidelines for Humans by Philipp Hauer
• Reducing Pull Request Cycle Time with Swarmia

Top comments (0)

Templates let you quickly answer FAQs or store snippets for re-use.

Are you sure you want to hide this comment? It will become hidden in your post, but will still be visible via the comment's permalink .

Hide child comments as well

For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse

Optimizing React Applications with Recoil

Kartik Mehta - Aug 30

Day 5 - Git Essential Training

Ryoichi Homma - Aug 30

Measuring Community Health: The Metrics That Actually Matter for Startup DevTools

Rakesh kumar - Aug 30

Executing Codeless Test Automation – A Beginner’s Guide

Ankit Kumar Sinha - Aug 30

We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.

Top 10 Best Practices for Code Review

Code review is all about improving the code quality. However, it can be a nightmare for engineering managers and developers when not done correctly. They may experience several code review challenges and slow down the entire development process.Hence, following code review best practices to promote collaboration, improve code readability, and foster a positive team culture is crucial.

Types of Code Reviews

There are two types of code reviews: 1. Formal code review and 2. Lightweight code review.

Formal Code Review

As the name suggests, formal code reviews are based on a formal and structured process to find defects in code, specifications, and designs. It follows a set of established guidelines and involves multiple reviewers.

The most popular form of formal code review is Fagan Inspection. It consists of six steps: Planning, overview meeting, preparation, inspection meeting, casual analysis, reworking, and follow-up.

However, the downside of this type is that it is more time-consuming and resource-intensive than other types of code review.

Lightweight Code Review

Such a type of code review is commonly used by the development team and not testers. It is mostly followed when code review is not life-threatening. In other words, when reviewing a code doesn’t impact the software quality to a great extent.

There are four subtypes of lightweight code review:

Instant Code Review

This can also be known as pair programming. In this type, two developers work together on the same computer where one is writing code while the other is reviewing it in real time. Such a type is highly interactive and helps in knowledge sharing and spotting bugs.

Synchronous Code Review

In synchronous code review, the author produces the code themselves and asks the reviewer for feedback immediately when done with coding. The coder and reviewer then discuss and improve the code together. It involves direct communication and helps in keeping the discussion real around the code.

Asynchronous Code Review

While it is similar to synchronous code review, the only difference is that the code authors and reviewers don’t have to look at the code at the same moment. It is usually an ideal choice among developers because it allows flexibility and is beneficial for developers who work across various time zones.

Team Code Review

This type works for very specific situations. In this, different roles are assigned to the reviewers. It helps in more in-depth reviews and gives various perspectives. For team code reviews: code review tools, version control systems, and collaboration platforms are used.

Choose the correct code review type based on your team’s strengths and weaknesses as well as the factors unique to your organization.

Code Review Best Practices

Create a code review checklist.

Code review checklists include a predetermined set of questions and rules that the team will follow during the code review process. A few of the necessary quality checks include:

• Readability and maintainability: This is the first criterion and cannot be overstated enough.
• Uniform formatting: Whether the code with consistent indentation, spacing, and naming convention easy to understand? 
• Testing and quality assurance: Whether it have meticulous testing and quality assurance processes? 
• Boundary testing: Are we exploring extreme scenarios and boundary conditions to identify hidden problems? 
• Security and performance: Are we ensuring security and performance in our source code?
• Architectural integrity: Whether the code is scalable, sustainable, and has a solid architectural design?

Apart from this, answer three questions in your mind while reviewing the code. It includes:

• Am I able to understand what the code does? 
• Is the code functioning how I expect it to?
• Is the code fulfilling the regular requirements? 

This allows you to know what to look for in a code review, streamline the code review, and focus on priorities.

Foster a Code Review Culture

The code review process must be an opportunity for growth and knowledge sharing rather than a critique of developers’ abilities.

To have effective code reviews, It is vital to create a culture of collaboration and learning. It includes encouraging pair programming so that developers can learn from each other and less experienced members can learn from their senior leaders.

You can establish code review guidelines that emphasize constructive feedback, respect, and empathy. Ensure that you communicate the goals of the code review and specify the roles and responsibilities of reviewers and authors of the code.

This allows the development team to know the purpose behind code review and take it as a way to improve their coding abilities and skills.

Provide Constructive Feedback

One of the code review practices is to provide feedback that is specific, honest, and actionable. Constructive feedback is important in building rapport with your software development team.

The feedback should point out the right direction rather than a confusion. It could be in the form of suggestions, highlighting potential issues, or pointing out blind spots.

Make sure that you explain the ‘Why’ behind your feedback so that it reduces the need for follow-ups and gives the necessary context. When writing comments, it should be written clearly and concisely.

This helps in improving the skills of software developers and producing better code which further results in a high-quality codebase.

Aim for Small, Incremental Changes

Instead of focusing on all the changes altogether, focus on a small section to examine all aspects thoroughly. It is advisable to break them into small, manageable chunks to identify potential issues and offer suggestions for improvement.

Focusing on a small section lets reviewers examine all aspects thoroughly (Use a code review checklist). Smaller the PRs, developers can understand code changes in a short amount of time and reviewers can provide more focused and detailed reviews. Each change is given the attention it deserves and easier to adhere to the style guide.

This helps in a deeper understanding of the code’s impact on the overall project.

Incorporate Code Review Goals and Capture Metrics

According to Goodhart’s law, “When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure”.

To measure the effectiveness of code review, have a few tangible goals so that it gives a quantifiable picture of how your code is improving. Have a few metrics in mind to determine the efficiency of your review and analyze the impact of the change in the process.

You can use SMART criteria and start with external metrics to get the bigger picture of how your code quality is increasing. Other than this, below are a few internal key metrics that must be kept in mind:

• Inspection rate: The speed at which code is reviewed.
• Defect rate: It is measured by dividing the number of defects found by the number of hours spent on a code review.
• Defect density: It is measured by dividing the defect count by thousands of lines of code. 

Besides this, you can use metrics-driven code review tools to decide in advance the goals and how to measure the effectiveness.

Don’t Rush your Review

As mentioned above, don’t review the code all at once. Keep these three things in mind:

• Don’t review the code for longer than 60 minutes. 
• Limit your review to 200-400 lines of code at once. 
• Plan for 3 seconds of review time per line of code. 

This is because reviewing the code continuously can drop off the focus and attention to detail. This further makes it less effective and invites burnout.

Hence, conduct code review sessions often and in short sessions. Encourage few breaks in between and set boundaries otherwise, defects may go unnoticed and the purpose of the code review process remains unfulfilled.

Rotate Code Reviewers Regularly

Relying on the same code reviewers consistently is a common challenge that can cause burnout. This can negatively impact the software development process in the long run.

Hence, encourage a rotation approach i.e. different team members can participate in reviewing the code. This brings in various skill sets and experience levels which promotes cross learning and a well-rounded review process. It also provides different points of view to get better solutions and fewer blind spots.

With this approach, team members can be familiar with different parts of the codebase, avoid bias in the review process, and understand each other's coding styles.

Always Document Code Review Decisions

Documenting code review decisions is a great way to understand the overall effectiveness of the code review process. Ensure that you record and track the code review outcome for future reference. It is because this documentation makes it easier for those who may work on the codebase in the future.

It doesn’t matter if the review type is instant or synchronous.

Documentation provides insights into the reasoning behind certain choices, designs, and modifications. It helps in keeping historical records i.e. changes made over time, reasons for those changes, and any lessons learned during the review process. Besides this, it accelerates the onboarding process for new joiners.

As a result, documentation and tracking of the code review decisions encourage the continuous improvement culture within the development team.

Focus on Coding Standards, Not Personal Preference

Emphasizing coding standards promotes consistency, readability, maintainability, and overall code quality.

Personal preferences vary widely among developers. Hence, by focusing on coding standards, team members can limit subjective arguments and rather rely on documented agreed-upon code review guidelines. It helps in addressing potential issues early in the development process and ensures the codebase remains consistent over time.

Besides this, adhering to coding standards makes it easier to scale development efforts and add new features and components seamlessly.

Automate as Much as Possible

Code review is a vital process yet it can be time-consuming. Hence, automate what can be automated.

Use code review tools like Typo to help improve the code quality and increase the level of speed, precision, and consistency. This allows reviewers to take more time in giving valuable feedback, automate, track changes, and enable easy collaboration. It also ensures that the changes don’t break existing functionality and streamline the development process.

Typo - Automated Code Review Tool

Typo’s automated code review tool identifies issues in your code and auto-fixes them before you merge to master. This means less time reviewing and more time for important tasks. It keeps your code error-free, making the whole process faster and smoother.

Key features:

• Supports top 8 languages including C++ and C#.
• Understands the context of the code and fixes issues accurately.
• Optimizes code efficiently.
• Provides automated debugging with detailed explanations.
• Standardizes code and reduces the risk of a security breach

If you prioritize the code review process, do follow the above-mentioned best practices. These code review best practices maximize the quality of the code, improve the team’s productivity, and streamline the development process.

Happy reviewing!

Get Typo for free

Implement DORA metrics, gain dev visibility & drive success in your teams.

Related Articles

Webinar: ‘The Hows and Whats of DORA.' with Bryan Finster and Richard Pangborn

Optimizing Code Reviews to Boost Developer Productivity

Top 6 Jellyfish Alternatives

Aligned with the SPACE framework built by the world’s tech leaders on developer satisfaction & productivity

We're on a mission to build engaged, productive tech teams. Try it out for free!

QUICK LINKS

100% secure.

Follow us on:

How To Review Someone Else’s Code: Tips and Best Practices

• Share article on Twitter
• Share article on Facebook
• Share article on LinkedIn

Imagine you have a co-worker or friend who’s asked you to review a piece of code for them. You might be thinking, “Wait, I don’t really know what that means.” Maybe you’re too nervous to say that to your colleague. Not to worry — we’ve all been there.

While your first code review might seem like yet another test of your abilities, it’s actually just another set of eyes on a piece of code to help spot any problems before it gets launched. Even if you’re a new developer or still learning code, you can help people out by reviewing their code.

In the following article, we’ll help to demystify what it means to review code . We’ll even lay out a five-step process to follow so you can review someone else’s code easily and clearly. Check out the video below. Then read on to learn more.

What is a code review?

A code review is a collaborative process where other members of your development team look over your code to give you:

• Potential improvements
• A list of outstanding questions

In practice, this means that your fellow developers will either add comments within your code or send you a list of questions to answer. They could also sit down with you at your computer and talk through a few suggestions on how to make your code better. It’s a good idea to ask someone who will eventually use the code to help you review it.

Why is it a good idea to review code?

Reviewing code helps maintain best practices for the code and keep a certain standard across the code base. Elements of the code, including styling, formatting, design patterns, and naming conventions, should be kept consistent. Having someone who works with the same standards review your code will help keep it formatted correctly and easy to use for other team members.

Code review is also a great way to introduce other team members to the new piece of code going into the code base. You can talk about it and get them up to speed quickly.

Additionally, it helps to minimize or eliminate the “bus factor,” which Mike, the developer from Philadelphia who talks about code review in the video above, describes:

“The bus factor refers to the problem of having one team member with too much knowledge. The problem is if that team member then got hit by a bus, then no one on the team would know about the code that’s going into the code base.”

Lastly, a code review is a good idea because it facilitates discussion. When teams are busy or working remotely, communication doesn’t happen as frequently. Scheduling code reviews is a great way to get teammates talking, strategizing, and learning from one another.

Where do code reviews happen?

Depending on your relationship with the person asking you to review their code, this could happen in several locations. For example, a fellow learner or programmer friend of yours could simply email you a code file and ask for your comments. In that case, you would put your comments in the code file and send back any questions you have in an email response.

Alternatively, a code review can happen online with a community of programmers. You can help review someone else’s code on websites like:

• Codecademy Forums

If you take part in a code review on some of these repositories (like Stash or Github), it’s done with a pull request. The original programmer will add you as a reviewer, and then the website will track all changes that you make when you’re completing your code review. You could also be conducting a code review internally at work, either in person or using a version control system that your company has implemented.

5 easy steps to a successful code review

To help you get started with reviewing code, we’ve got a simple five-step process to share. Let’s get into code review best practices.

1. What is the code doing?

To start, we need to determine why the code was written in the first place. For example, if you’re conducting a code review at work, the purpose of the code could be tied to a change in requirements. It’s key to know the purpose of the code because that context will allow you to deliver the best possible code review with helpful comments.

To make sure that you have a good understanding of what the code is for, here are three questions you can ask yourself (or your fellow programmer):

• Do you have the right background info?
• Do you fully understand why this code is needed?
• Do you understand how this code fits into the project?

2. Frame your mindset

Before you get started reviewing the code, you want to get into the right mindset. In a sense, you want to know how you fit into this scenario. What is your level of familiarity with the code? How confident are you in knowing the person who’s written the code and what they are trying to accomplish? This will give you an idea of what feedback you can confidently give to this author.

This step might sound a little vague, so we’ve got a list of questions to help you set up your mindset for the code review:

• How experienced are you with the codebase or language?
• Are you going to be using this code in the future?
• Have you written code similar to this?
• What is the experience level of the author?
• What is your relationship with the author?

3. Test the code

Now that we know what the code is for, we can go ahead and test it out. We’re looking to see if the code does what it’s supposed to do. During this step, you can also test out the user interface. For example, if you’re reviewing a website, you could check to make sure that it appears as it should, that the changes are incorporated, and that nothing breaks as you use it.

If you need a couple of questions to help you provide feedback on code function, you can start here:

• Does the code generate warnings or errors?
• Does the code take longer than normal to build or run?
• Do the changes require any additional setup steps?

4. Inspect the code

After figuring out if the code actually works, we can dive into the code itself and make sure it’s written well. Here, we’re getting into the details of code review best practices. You can offer up advice on how things might be better organized or formatted. For example, you could ask yourself:

• Are correct naming conventions followed?
• Does the code follow DRY principles (i.e., it doesn’t repeat itself)?
• Are new files and folders named appropriately?
• Does the code have error handling?
• Is the code written in a style that’s similar to any other code within the same project?

5. Compile your review

Just as the code review can take place in several locations, you can also format your code review in a variety of ways. Sometimes you might need to prepare a formal report of your findings and then submit that as a Word document or PDF.

In other situations, if you are using a website like GitHub, you may just add comments to the code. If you have longer questions or feedback, you can add them to a comment thread and allow the conversation to take place all online.

Keep in mind a few tips when you are compiling your code review:

• Beware of nitpicking
• Be respectful
• Be specific and descriptive
• Be open to follow-ups

Growing as a developer through code review

One of the great things about becoming a developer or learning some aspects of programming for yourself is that you get to learn and work with other people. Code reviews are a common practice, and the discussion they generate will help make you a better programmer, whether it’s your code being reviewed or someone else’s code.

“Coding is a team sport,” says Mike. Learning to code should be fun, and learning how to give great code reviews is part of the process. If you’re thinking of becoming a front-end engineer or a back-end engineer , code reviews are a great way to practice for your new job.

To learn more of find other learners to practice with, head over to the Codecademy Forums .

Related articles

What Is XML Used For?

XML stands for eXtensible Markup Language. You may run into it being used in a variety of programming languages. This article will show you what it is used for.

4 In-Demand Cybersecurity Skills That Will Help Get You Hired

Seize the job opportunities in cybersecurity by learning these key technical skills.

What Is CoffeeScript?

What is CoffeeScript, and is it worth learning? In this article, we explain how it changed the way we write both front-end and back-end JavaScript code.

7 Small Wins To Celebrate On Your Journey To Becoming A Professional Developer

Having an end goal is important, but so is celebrating your progress. Here are some milestones to look forward to as you learn how to code.

7 Most Popular Programming Languages for Game Development

Learn the best languages for game development and why developers choose to use them. Discover how our classes can get you started with game design.

8 Organizations Helping Girls & Women Build Careers in Tech

There’s a gender gap in tech — but it’s getting smaller thanks to organizations like these.

5 Ways to Stay Accountable to Your Learning Goals in 2024

Planning to learn to code in 2024? We’ve put together a list of 6 tips and resources to help you stay accountable to your coding goals this year.

eng-practices

How to do a code review.

The pages in this section contain recommendations on the best way to do code reviews, based on long experience. All together they represent one complete document, broken up into many separate sections. You don’t have to read them all, but many people have found it very helpful to themselves and their team to read the entire set.

• The Standard of Code Review
• What to Look For In a Code Review
• Navigating a CL in Review
• Speed of Code Reviews
• How to Write Code Review Comments
• Handling Pushback in Code Reviews

See also the CL Author’s Guide , which gives detailed guidance to developers whose CLs are undergoing review.

How to Ace a Code Review Interview

A Code Review, or "Peer Code Review," is a software engineering process involving developers looking over code for mistakes or other problems. In many instances, code reviews involve many different developers working together.

The process is a cornerstone of producing good software, no matter the company. After all, code is written by human beings, and, unfortunately, nobody's perfect.

Mistakes, one way or another, will be made. Fortunately, these mistakes can be caught and fixed efficiently through systematic code reviews.

In many cases, software engineering candidates will need to answer code review interview questions. There are many different tools or methods certain companies use for code reviews.

First, however, software engineering candidates need to understand the concept of the process itself.

Code Reviews and Software Engineer Interviews

In some software engineering or engineering management interviews, your hiring manager may ask you to perform a code review project.

In many cases, this will be a take-home assignment you'll need to complete before your on-site interviews.

Some interviews even allow candidates to conduct a code review instead of a coding interview round. However, this is usually more common during engineering manager interviews.

There's a lot that goes into effective code reviews. Even so, preparing for them may feel overwhelming if you haven't had that much experience doing them first-hand.

That's why we cover all the fundamentals of effective code reviews in our guide here.

Let's get to it!

What Candidates Should Look For During Code Reviews

Code Design

First and foremost, candidates should evaluate the design of the changelist being reviewed.

Be sure to ask yourself questions like:

• Do the individual pieces of code in the changelist make sense together?
• Are suggested changes better served for the codebase or a library?
• Does the changelist function well with the system at large?
• Is this an appropriate time to add the functionality in question?

Code Functionality

Secondly, the functionality of the changelist is a crucial aspect to be evaluated during a code review.

Ask yourself:

• Does the changelist actually perform the functions it is meant to?
• Is the intended function beneficial for both the end-users and the developers working with this code?

Most of the time, the changelists being reviewed should generally work well enough at that stage. However, this is not always the case and may intentionally not be the case if a code review is designed for an interview.

If a candidate performs a code review, they should always investigate any edge cases that may affect the code. For example, concurrency problems are major functionality problems to look out for.

At the end of the day, the best frame of mind for this aspect of the code review is to put yourself in the users' shoes. This means both the end-users and the developers who will later work on this code.

Outside of interviews, validating the changelist may be prudent. This is especially true when considering UI changes or something similar that immediately affects end-users.

Nevertheless, this will likely be unnecessary for the code review assignments for software engineering or engineering management interviews.

Code Complexity

Besides the functionality of the changelist, the next most important thing to consider is the complexity of the code being reviewed.

Ultimately, the changelist should not be any more complex than it has to be. The greater the complexity, the greater the potential for problems or bugs.

While conducting your code review, you should evaluate the complexity of every single line of code.

Always ask yourself:

• Is this line too complicated?
• Is this class too convoluted?
• Is this function more elaborate than necessary?

The best way to judge the complexity of the changelist is by thinking about whether the code can be understood quickly by other developers reading it.

If not, chances are it is more complicated than it should be.

This is so important because if code is too complicated for developers to understand, it is likely that they will make changes that result in bugs down the line.

Code Consistency

One overlooked aspect of a code review tends to be the general consistency of the code with the rest of the software at large.

This may be a more challenging aspect of a code review compared to the other sections in our list.

Chances are, an engineering style guide of some sort will be available to you that is specific to the company that will be handy for this part of the code review.

Finally, candidates conducting a code review should look at and evaluate the comments left by the developer. Well-written code should always come alongside well-written comments.

Therefore, you should ask yourself:

• Are these comments easy to understand?
• Are these comments necessary to read the code?
• Do these comments provide meaningful explanations of the developer's thinking?

A good rule of thumb is that well-written comments should explain why particular lines of code exist rather than what the code is doing.

Going back to the code's complexity, comments explaining what the code is doing shouldn't be necessary.

The code should be easy enough to understand on its own. Otherwise, it can likely and should be more straightforward.

Keep in mind that this is not a black-and-white rule. There are times when intricate algorithms, for example, can be explained with comments.

Nevertheless, the comments left by the developer should generally elucidate the decisions they made in writing the code.

Evaluate Every Line Assigned

Last but not least, you should strive to look at every line of code under review.

This may seem obvious, but sometimes it may be tempting to skip some seemingly unimportant lines of code if the code review is of a larger scope.

There are certain parts of the code that you can quickly scan over, such as data files or large data structures.

However, you should carefully evaluate every line of code a developer writes, whether they be classes, functions, etc. Of course, you should look for and spot general coding errors and broken code.

Still, not every line of code requires the same level of scrutiny.

Some blocks of code may need more work than others.

Making these decisions is simply part of performing a code review. It is up to the individual judgment of the reviewer.

Best Way to Write Comments During a Code Review

When conducting code reviews, you'll undoubtedly be making dozens of comments.

During your interview assessments, your hiring managers may scrutinize the scope and style of the comments you leave.

Luckily for you, there's an easy way to write code review comments effectively:

Always Be Respectful

You need to always keep in mind that code reviews essentially are critiques of another developer's work.

This means that, first and foremost, you should always remain courteous and respectful when making comments.

Try to keep all your comments focused on the code itself without any comments directed towards the developer themselves.

Of course, some people may not be receptive to critiques of their work, but a personal attack gets nobody anywhere.

This, unfortunately, may not always be possible, but something you should always keep in mind.

Always Provide Explanations

Great comments always have something in common. That is, they always provide explanations for their reasoning.

This not only helps keep the comments respectful and productive but, needless to say, helps the developer understand the suggestion better.

But, of course, providing a long or drawn-out explanation of every comment or suggestion is not always necessary.

Yet, there are many times it is beneficial to explain your reasoning. This is especially true of code review interview rounds, as you can imagine.

Why Hiring Managers Care About Code Reviews

At the end of the day, there are several reasons hiring managers ask engineering candidates to perform code reviews.

First, just because they often take the form of take-home assignments does not mean they do not reveal important information about your potential as an engineer.

Hiring managers care about code reviews because:

• Code reviews help weed out unqualified candidates. Before they go through the trouble of interviewing unqualified engineers, a take-home code review assignment can demonstrate this to a hiring manager.
• Code reviews are usually critical aspects of a company's development process. Code reviews are standard practice in software engineering. This is especially true at larger companies with massive code bases . As such, hiring managers need to know that their candidates can perform them, as they will most likely be a part of their development duties.
• Code reviews give candidates to demonstrate their engineering skills. Code review assignments can be great opportunities for engineering candidates to show off their chops. Considering you would be reviewing code not written by yourself, code reviews allow you to demonstrate another unique dimension of your engineering abilities.

Additional Software Engineering Interview Prep

There's a lot more to software engineering interviews than code reviews. That goes without saying. This means that you will need some additional resources to prepare you for your software engineering interviews!

Luckily, at Exponent, you will find everything you could need to ace your upcoming software engineering interview.

💬 Review previously asked software engineering interview questions

📖 Study our company-specific software engineer interview guides

👯‍♂️ Practice your behavioral and system design skills with our mock interview practice tool .

👨‍🎓 Take our complete Software Engineering interview course .

Learn everything you need to ace your software engineering interviews.

Exponent is the fastest-growing tech interview prep platform. Get free interview guides, insider tips, and courses.

Get updates in your inbox with the latest tips, job listings, and more.

Price sticky

Best practices for Reviewing Code

Best practices for reviewing code.

You can now consume the entire blog in an audio version. Give it a try.

What is code review.

Code review is a software quality assurance process in which software’s source code is analyzed manually by a team or by using an automated code review tool. The motive is purely, to find bugs , resolve errors , and for most times, improving code quality . Reviewing the codebase makes sure that every software or new feature developed within the company is of high quality. Code review is an essential process that every software company must follow, so we researched the best practices for reviewing code.

Did You Know?

On average developers spend over 17 hours per week dealing with maintenance issues like debugging and refactoring, and about a quarter of that time is spent fixing bad code. That’s nearly $300B in lost productivity every year. 

-According to a research conducted by Stripe in partnership with Harris Poll

Top 9 Practices for Reviewing Code

Let’s dive into the best practices for performing an effective code review . A code review process differs from team to team; it’s an approach that needs few changes according to the projects and members getting involved. We have listed below 9 points to keep in mind while analyzing your code.

1. Set goals and standards

Before implementing a code review process, it is imperative to decide on important metrics and define unambiguous goals. Goals include acceptable coding standards in the company. Having set standards makes sure that each software product developed in the company meets the company’s standards.

2. Communicate Goals and Expectations

Communication of goals and expectations is essential. Not conveying goals and expectations to everyone in the team can lead to ambiguity regarding the result. Knowing what is expected from a developer makes it easier for them to complete a task.

3. Define a Code Review Process

Now that the goals and expectations are set and communicated with everyone it is time to define a code review process. Having a defined code review process will help everyone stay on track and decrease the time spent on technical debt

4. Use a code review checklist

A good code review requires a well-defined checklist. This checklist can be used by the reviewer to make sure nothing is missed out.

Recommended Read: The Ultimate Code Review Checklist

5. Authors should annotate source code before the review

Annotation can be a useful tool throughout the software development cycle and also for the reviewer. It helps the code reviewer understand the code better and what each block of code does. We encourage developers to add annotations to their code but do not overdo it.

6. Review for no more than 60 minutes at a time

It is a well-known fact that a person’s efficiency can deplete if they try to work continuously for hours without taking a break. The same concept applies when trying to review code. It is not recommended to perform code reviews for more than 60 minutes. Research has stated that post the 60 minutes mark the reviewer’s efficiency can deplete can some of the defects that may go unnoticed.

7. Establish a process for fixing defects found

Fixing the defects post a code review process is an ultimate goal. Having a defined process to fix the defects will make sure that it is done in the most effective way and with the least technical debt.

8. Foster a positive code review culture

In many companies, code reviews are used to evaluate the developer’s performance. But code reviews should be used for more than that. It should be used to develop an environment of learning. Rather than just telling them their mistakes it should be seen that they learn how to solve them and make sure these are not repeated.

9. Automate to Save Time

Automated Code Review tools like Codegrip are great assets for every software company. Tools like these can help reduce code review times to a few seconds. They can scan the entire codebase in less than a minute and find defects and also provide solutions for them.

Reviewing code is only a matter of seconds with Codegrip. Detect all bugs and vulnerabilities with a click of a button.   Your browser does not support the video tag.

Best code review technique.

Every company has its own process of performing code review but we look into four of the best and most code review techniques. 

1. Instant Code Reviewing Technique

The most direct form of reviewing code is the Instant Code review technique. In this, the developer is writing code while the reviewer sits beside reading the code simultaneously and correcting it on the go. Also known as pair programming, this process is best suited for highly complex programs where two minds can solve the problem much quicker and efficiently.

While this process looks favorable for companies but in reality, the time and workforce needed by this technique make it unfavorable. Two or more people working on code together means fewer average lines per developer. Interruption for corrections also halts the flow of work for the author of the code and the learning curve for a developer hinders if constant support or solution is presented right away by a reviewer for a complex problem.

  2. Ad-hoc (synchronous) Code Reviewing Technique

Also known as the “Over the Shoulder” code-review process. It is the most commonly used process with around 75% of companies participating in ad-hoc reviews. In this type of synchronous method, the coder produces the code and then asks the reviewer to review the code. The reviewer joins the coder at the screen and reviews the code while discussing it, over the shoulder. It is implemented wisely because it is informal and spontaneous. The process is successful only if the reviewer is available at the time or it disrupts the coder’s speed.  

This method has a high probability of missing errors and glitches as most of the time, the reviewer lacks the knowledge of the goal of the task. Immediate review was missed to bring out better results as a team would have in their refinement sessions together with tasks discussed upfront.

The ad-hoc review usually results in only a developer knowing the goal of the project. The major problem of this process is forced context-switching. Imagine working on complex software yourself, and then being called by your junior member for an ad-hoc review. You would have to leave your station immediately to review the code of your co-worker. Having to leave your work suddenly can create exhaustion and frustration.

3. Meeting-Based Code Reviewing Technique

This is the least commonly used process with only 44% using it once a month. In meeting-based code review, coders complete their work, and a meeting is called. The whole tech team sits, commenting, and attempting to improve the code together. It is a temporary process as it is highly unlikely to perform constantly considering the amount of time, loss of workforce for the time, decreased efficiency, and inability to get the whole team together.

Meeting-based code reviews make sense only when the whole team is inexperienced with the code review process. It involves assembling the entire team in a room, sharing ideas, and solving problems a few times. This helps every team member to understand the process much more clearer. With just over half of the companies using this, this process is not adequate as a code quality assurance standard.

4. Tool-Based Code Reviewing Technique

This process is not done by a team together, at least not on the same screen. It is also called an asynchronous code review. In this, once the code gets finished, the coder makes it available for others to review. The reviewer will review the code on their screen commenting, or even amending the errors in the codes. Then notifying the coder who on her agenda will improve it. When there are no changes, the code is marked with no comments for improvements, and the software gets approved.  

Tool-based code review eliminates the major problem in the above two processes, direct dependencies. With both coders and reviewers working on their schedules, it also eliminates forced context switching. But just like any other method has its downsides, the tool-based technique has many review loops which take a lot of time just like meeting-based processes.

Discussing these processes, we realize that there’s a need for a method that can make the use of Tool Based Code Review and remove the indirect dependency to get faster results. The solution to this is Automated Code Review Tools.

60% of Developers are using automated tools; 49% are using them at least weekly.

Automated Code Review Tools are tools prepared by tech community experts and reviewers who love using tool-based techniques but need the quickness of the ad-hoc technique. We will refer to our tool, CodeGrip to explain how these tools work. CodeGrip connects directly to your repositories like GitHub or BitBucket and lets you import your repository. It analyses your code line by line, finding out error markers such as incorrect lines, duplicity , and security issues , and displaying it collectively for a project and separately for all files as well.

Here’s a video of how you can review your code using Codegrip

An automated code review eliminates the manual reviewer role in the process. CodeGrip also provides the developer with a suggestive engine that shows the suggestions to amend code line by line. Codegrip also shows the estimated time to correct the code, allowing the developers to schedule work accordingly. This process is faster, more efficient, and even highly feasible at any time of period.

Want to get accurate code review results? Sign up now and get instant code review reports for Free!

Code review has remained the trusted code quality practice for the past few years. It seems to continue for years to come. But issues like lack of time and manpower call for the rise in the use of Automated Code Review tools. They’re more powerful, easier to use, and in the case of Codegrip highly affordable too.

Liked what you read? Subscribe and get fresh updates.

P.S. Don’t forget to share this post.

Related Posts

Everything You Need To Know About White Box Testing

6 Tips for Continuous Improvement in Software Testing

5 Cybersecurity Threats You Must Know As A Web Developer

Everything You Need To Know About Static Application Security Testing

Pranav mandhare

Well curated Content. The best practices are very apt for every software company. I loved that you also had an audio and video version of the blog.

Thank you. Stay updated new blogs are coming up every week.

Post a Comment cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Privacy Overview

Code review assignment (beta)

Teams can now be configured to assign a specified number of reviewers when a team is requested for code review. When coupled with CODEOWNERS , organizations can now ensure that code is reviewed by the proper team and automate distribution of code reviews across team members. Code review assignment is available for all users who are members of an organization as public beta.

Learn more about code review assignment on GitHub

GitHub Packages is generally available

Starting today, GitHub Packages (formerly GitHub Package Registry) is generally available. The use of GitHub Packages is free for all public repositories, and every plan gets included storage and data transfer for private repositories.

Learn more about GitHub Packages pricing

GitHub Actions is generally available

Starting today, GitHub Actions is generally available. GitHub Actions are free for all public repositories, and every plan gets included storage and runner minutes for private repositories.

Learn more about GitHub Actions pricing

Code Review Checklist: 10 Best Practices for Powerful Code

• July 20, 2023
• Development

A code review checklist is essential to ensuring the effectiveness of the code review process. Up to 36% of companies believe reviews are the most efficient way to raise the quality of their code. We will discuss the code review practices for your checklist.

Code reviews are a phase in the software development life cycle where developers carefully check the other’s code for errors, strange formatting, or differences with system specifications that could result in more serious problems during software integration.

The core objective of code reviews has remained the same despite changes in approaches to keep up with evolving technology and development methodologies. Through knowledge transfer and team collaboration, this approach fosters a sense of shared ownership over the product’s development.

Following code review best practices, make sure that the code is up to standard, meets code quality, covers the requirements adequately, and avoids unintended build failures. Further, the standardization of code and formatting results in a more accurate source code as a by-product.

Table of contents

Latest updates in code review.

• Types of Code Review
• Code Review Checklist: 10 Best Practices

What Are the Benefits of Code Reviews?

Spreading knowledge within an organization is facilitated in large part by the process. In addition to these factors, 76% of developers who participated in the 2022 Global DevSecOps Survey indicated code reviews are “very valuable.” 

The following are some more benefits of the code review process.

Improved code quality

Code reviews are an important practice of ensuring that you deliver high-quality code and products. Through a code review, we can block a PR that gets merged without the required automation tests. This assists you in lowering technical debt and increasing code quality.

Knowledge sharing and learning

Participating in code reviews, as both a reviewer and someone who submits code for review, is an excellent way for team members to share knowledge. You gain an understanding of your coworkers’ cognitive processes when you review their work. 

Also, ask why something is done a certain way, whether it’s because of a personal preference or an illogical pattern. You have the chance to learn about different best practices and receive feedback from your peer developers within the team. 

Consistency and adherence to standards

Code reviews enable team members to get familiar with various codebases in tiny increments while keeping their attention on the primary project. As a result, you won’t have any trouble catching up with their part of the project if one of your teammates takes a leave of absence. This is because you’ve previously seen some of their codebases.

Increased team collaboration

Team members feel more pride in their work and a better sense of belonging when they collaborate to develop a solution. Together, authors and reviewers can identify the best ways to satisfy client needs. In order to eliminate information silos and maintain a fluid workflow between teams, it is important to improve cooperation throughout the software development lifecycle.

Developers must cultivate a mindset for code reviews that is firmly rooted in collaborative development if they are to conduct the task effectively.

Risk mitigation

Code reviews increase security, particularly when security experts conduct a focused evaluation. Software development must consider application security, and reviews can assist in finding security flaws and guarantee compliance. Members of the security team can scan code for flaws and warn developers of the danger.

Code reviews are a fantastic addition to automated tests and scans that find security flaws.

Enhanced maintainability

Code review improves the code’s ability to be maintained. It makes sure that several individuals are familiar with the code’s logic and operation, making it simple to maintain even if the code’s original creator is not available.

In these procedures, there are some new improvements. A survey conducted by Codegrip , which featured 1000 tech enthusiasts from around the world, including CTOs, CEOs, Tech Leads, and Senior Developers, was used to examine the trends in code review in 2022. The results offer insightful information about the level of code quality and the widely accepted best practices in the industry.

One of the important findings shows that 36% of companies believe reviews are the most efficient way to raise the quality of their code . It’s interesting to note that while 16% of tech organizations still don’t have a formalized procedure, 84% of them have a specified process. This demonstrates the importance given to this process as a quality control measure.

Only 29% of companies use automated code reviews. Manual reviews continue to be the method of choice for 71% of companies. In addition, 4% of the companies just use automated tools for the task while 25% use both manual, code review checklists and automated methods.

What are the Types of Code Review?

Any meaningful development process should include a code review, as every experienced software developer is aware. However, most developers are unaware of the wide range of reviews that exist. So, before diving into the code review best practices, let’s take a look at the advantages and disadvantages of each type, which vary based on the project and team structure.

Pair Programming

Two heads are better than one, right? When two developers work together, one actively writes the code while the other keeps an eye on it. This process is known as pair programming. It acts as a built-in code critic, spotting errors as they happen and encouraging knowledge exchange.

Formal Inspection

Formal inspections entail a planned, structured meeting when a group of developers looks at the code together. This approach guarantees thoroughness, conformity to standards, and the identification of both high-level and low-level concerns while being guided by checklists and guidelines.

Tool-Assisted Reviews

The use of specialist software is included in tool-assisted reviews. These programs run an automatic analysis of the code, pointing out potential errors, coding convention violations, and other problems. They serve as useful aids, enhancing the review procedure and enhancing effectiveness.

Lightweight or Informal Reviews

Compared to formal inspections, these are more flexible and less organized. They are often carried out as part of the standard development process, where team members occasionally check one other’s code. Pull requests, walkthroughs, and reading sessions can all be used to conduct these reviews.

Over-the-Shoulder Reviews

Imagine a group of programmers huddling around a screen, looking over each other’s shoulders to examine the code. It’s a relaxed and engaging method that works well for identifying problems right away, exchanging ideas, and promoting teamwork.

Self-Review

Developers use this method to check their own code before submitting it for official review. Developers can find straightforward problems, make sure that coding standards are followed, and make the appropriate modifications by independently evaluating their code. Before involving other team members in the review process, self-evaluation might be a first step.

Continuous Integration (CI) Reviews

Reviews are integrated into the automated build and test process in a continuous integration environment. The CI system initiates builds and tests whenever a developer contributes code changes to the repository. The updated code is examined for compatibility with the existing codebase, test failures, and integration concerns.

Read our blog CI/CD Tools to Accelerate Software Delivery

What are the Best Practices for Code Review?

The following are the top 10 code review best practices we have gathered for your code review checklist.

• Create a Code Review Checklist
• Establish Clear Objectives
• Addressing Feedback
• Maximize automation opportunities
• Use Code Review Tools
• Emphasize Testability
• Document Decisions
• Adherence to coding standards
• Encourage Self-Review
• Foster Collaboration

1. Create a code review checklist

The first one is that creating a code review checklist with Code formatting, naming conventions, error handling, security precautions, and adherence to coding standards should all be on the checklist. It is a helpful manual that encourages thoroughness and guards against important details being missed.

Download a pre-made list and edit it to meet your team’s procedures and your needs rather than creating one from scratch. A code review checklist that is specific to your technological stack should be sought after. Checklists can also be used to concentrate on particular elements, such as security or accessibility.

Here’s a short and general checklist you can use as a reference:

• Does the code fulfill the requirements outlined in the user story?
• Are there any logical errors or unexpected behaviors?
• Is the code well-structured and organized?
• Are meaningful names used for variables, functions, classes, etc.?
• Is the code properly commented to explain complex logic or intent?
• Is the code consistent in style with existing codebase and coding standards?
• Are there any performance bottlenecks or inefficiencies?
• Are appropriate data structures and algorithms used?
• Is memory usage optimized?
• Are errors handled with appropriate error messages and logging?
• Are exception-handling mechanisms in place where necessary?
• Are input validations thorough to prevent unexpected behavior?
• Are there any security vulnerabilities?
• Are sensitive data handled securely?
• Is user input properly sanitized and validated?
• Are unit tests provided for critical components?
• Do the tests cover a significant portion of the codebase?
• Are there any test cases for boundary conditions and edge cases?
• Is there sufficient documentation for usage, configuration, and maintenance?
• Are API endpoints documented?
• Is there documentation for any external dependencies or libraries used?
• Is the code properly versioned and documented in the version control system?
• Are commits atomic and logically grouped?
• Are pull requests descriptive and linked to relevant issues or tasks?
• Are performance metrics monitored and logged for critical components?
• Are there provisions for scaling and optimization as the codebase grows?
• Provide clear, specific, and actionable feedback on areas of improvement.
• Acknowledge strengths and positive aspects of the code.

Now that you have your code review checklist, you can continue with the following practices.

2. Establish Clear Objectives

Everyone who is added to the process should understand the standards you have for them. Should they be seeking for flaws?

Did you include them so they could become familiar with the code base? Or, did you add a developer from a different team that uses the codebase’s features?

Every time you add a reviewer, you should be clear about why you are doing it. This ideal method for reviews ensures that reviewers pay attention to the right issues and deal with differences in opinions.

3. Addressing Feedback

As a developer, when you are addressing the review’s feedback, you must maintain certain principles for yourself, such as responding to the comments soon and fixing them. This reflects your work ethic and overall improves the development cycle . There could also be instances where you can add a comment explaining the reason if you reject or disagree with any received comment; otherwise.

To make sure the addressed reviews do, in fact work, run the automated test suites locally before pushing the new changes. This way, you can compare and attach references to test results against the new fixes.

Most importantly, and one that a lot of developers often miss, is adding a proper description and commit message to the PR they will send to address the review feedback. This allows a great deal of time taken off the reviewer’s shoulders without having to refer to you back and forth.

4. Maximize automation opportunities

Automating a portion of the process can be saving you a whopping 30% of your valuable time . To assist the code better, use style checkers, grammar checkers, and other automated techniques like static analysis tools. By doing this, you can ensure that code reviewers can focus entirely on providing insightful input and won’t waste their time commenting on problems they could identify automatically.

5. Use Code Review Tools

Popular platforms like GitHub, GitLab, and Azure DevOps provide seamless test analysis execution within pull requests. In the event that unit tests, integration tests, e2e  tests, or test coverage fall short of expectations, you can stop code merging by specifying a policy. 

Use potent tools like formatters like Prettier and Black to enforce uniform code styles. They guarantee that your code keeps a consistent look and feel and improves readability without compromising functionality. 

Additionally, linting tools like ESLint and Pylint perform static analysis to identify code patterns that could result in mistakes. Use tools like SonarQube for thorough code analysis, measuring, and providing insights about code quality and code coverage. 

They offer insightful metrics, point out problems and bad code, and reveal potential weaknesses that can be hiding in your software. Utilize these tools to boost and improve your source code.

Read our blog, Software Engineering Principles .

6. Emphasize Testability

Add running tests for your code change to your code review checklist when you can. Testing is a best engineering practice as well as a best practice. Testing your code before asking for feedback ensures that it truly functions.

Additionally, it demonstrates your appreciation for the code reviewers’ time. Sending out code that obviously (as the tests demonstrate) does not work as planned is not only embarrassing but also makes everyone less productive. 

Additionally, remember to create new tests or update old ones to cover the modified or added functionality adequately.

7. Document Decisions

Although good code speaks for itself, additional documentation makes it easier to use. Consider the following to guarantee high-quality documentation.

• Does the documentation make the purpose of the code clear? Users should have little trouble understanding its functionality and desired results.
• Does the documentation provide users with clear instructions on how to utilize the code? It ought to act as a user manual that makes use simple.
• Do updates to the code or new features require further documentation? To keep people informed, make sure to record any updates adequately.
• Is the documentation clear, well-written, and coherent? The documentation must be clear in order for people to comprehend it and traverse it with ease.

8. Adherence to coding standards

The code review process is essential for maintaining high standards for quality. But if that criterion isn’t explicit, how can we meet it? As our guiding principles, we must establish a set of code quality criteria first. When these principles are in place, we may develop a checklist for our particular needs for the task. 

For example, ask yourself, does the code follow the recommended procedures for the programming language in question, or do all developers adhere to security best practices like those in the OWASP Top 10?

9. Encourage Self-Review

Empowering developers to conduct self-reviews is a valuable best practice. People can find and fix basic problems, make their code more clear, and increase their understanding of the implementation by studying their own code before asking for feedback from others. 

Self-review helps developers cultivate a critical eye for their work by fostering a sense of responsibility and accountability. Additionally, it lessens the workload for reviewers so they may concentrate on more in-depth details.

10. Foster Collaboration

Collaboration is the lifeblood of code reviews, and maintaining a collaborative environment is important for successful reviews. During the code review process, promote courteous and open dialogue to foster useful debate and information sharing. Create a space where developers and reviewers are free to discuss ideas, ask questions, and make suggestions. Insist on the value of group cooperation and shared ownership of the codebase. 

Collaboration in the code review process not only improves code quality but also builds teamwork, strengthens team skills, and encourages the development team to keep learning and getting better that why it is a code review best practice.

Code Review Checklist Conclusion

For development teams to maintain high-quality code and promote continuous progress, code review is an important discipline. Teams may improve the efficacy and efficiency of their review by putting this code review checklist into practice.

ClickIT is an IT services and software development company . We recognize the value of having a clear software development process, providing a comprehensive range of software development services to assist you, boost productivity, and turn around products more quickly.

Our team can assist you with anything, from gathering specifications through testing and implementation, with the expertise of our staff. We can help you implement a process for your software that meets your specific needs and requirements. 

Code Review Checklist FAQs

A code review is a process where a developer or team of developers inspect another developer’s work.

Code reviews can help to raise the quality of the code, identify and correct problems, and enhance readability and maintainability.

The assignment of reviewers who lack the necessary qualifications and experience is one common error to avoid when conducting reviews.

Reading books and articles about code reviews is one way to develop your abilities and master coding best practices and making a code review checklist

A good code review process involves a thorough examination of the code for correctness, clarity, and adherence to best practices. -Constructive feedback -Clear explanations, -A respectful tone contributes to effective communication. A reviewer should focus on the code’s functionality, maintainability, and alignment with project goals.

to our newsletter

We make devops easier.

How To Upgrade RDS with PostgreSQL 16 for Improved Security?

In this client’s succes story, we will see how we

.NET Core vs .NET Framework Differences

How to Automate an AI-based Healthcare App with DevOps

A healthcare startup contacted the ClickIT team to design and

We provide cost-effective solutions tailored to your needs. Ready to elevate your IT game?

Our Newsletter

Nearshore DevOps Outsourcing

Hire DevOps engineers  

Hire Remote DevOps  

Nearshore Software Development

Hire Python Developer

Hire React Developer

Hire PHP Developer

Hire Node.js Deve loper

Web development company

Web app development

Custom Software development

SaaS Development Consulting

SaaS Security Services

DevOps For SaaS

Fintech app development

Financial Services

Fintech Software Development

Healthcare SaaS

Healthcare Software Development

Healthcare app development

HIPAA Compliance

Top Locations

Software Companies in Dallas

Software Companies in San Diego

Software Companies in Los Angeles

Tech Companies in New York

Web Development Company in Houston

Web Development Companies in California

Work with us now!

How to prepare for a code review interview

In today’s competitive job market, preparation is key to landing your dream job. And when it comes to technical positions, such as software development, the code review interview is an important step in the hiring process. So, how can you ensure that you are fully prepared for this crucial step? In this article, we will explore everything you need to know to effectively prepare for a code review interview.

Understanding the Code Review Interview Process

Before diving into the specifics of preparing for a code review interview, it’s important to have a clear understanding of the overall process. Code review interviews are typically conducted to assess a candidate’s technical proficiency , problem-solving abilities, and communication skills in the context of code review.

During a code review interview, you will typically be given a codebase to review and asked to provide feedback, identify bugs, suggest improvements, and discuss your thought process.

Code review interviews are an integral part of the hiring process for many software development roles. They provide employers with a valuable opportunity to evaluate a candidate’s ability to analyze and understand code, identify potential issues, and provide constructive feedback.

The primary purpose of a code review interview is to assess your ability to analyze and understand code, identify potential issues, and provide constructive feedback. This evaluation allows employers to gain valuable insights into your problem-solving abilities, attention to detail , and overall suitability for the role.

Code review interviews can take various formats depending on the company and the specific role. However, they generally involve a combination of technical questions, code exercises , and discussions.

Some coding tests for interviews may be conducted in person, while others may be done remotely, perhaps through video conferences or a coding interview platform . Regardless of the format, it’s important to approach the interview with a clear understanding of what to expect and prepare accordingly.

Preparation

Preparing for a code review interview involves familiarizing yourself with common coding practices, design patterns, and industry standards. It’s essential to have a solid understanding of the programming language and frameworks relevant to the position you are applying for.

Additionally, it’s beneficial to practice code review on open-source projects or by reviewing code samples available online. This will help you develop your critical thinking skills and improve your ability to provide constructive feedback.

During the interview, it’s important to communicate your thought process clearly and concisely. Explain your reasoning behind the feedback you provide and be open to discussing alternative approaches or solutions.

Remember to pay attention to details and be thorough in your analysis. Look for potential bugs, performance issues, security vulnerabilities, and code readability problems. Providing specific examples and suggestions for improvement will demonstrate your attention to detail and problem-solving abilities.

Lastly, code review interviews are not only about technical skills but also about communication and collaboration. Be prepared to explain your feedback and engage in a constructive discussion with the interviewer. Effective communication and the ability to work well with others are highly valued skills in the software development industry.

Essential Skills for a Code Review Interview

To excel in a code review interview, there are several essential skills that you should focus on developing and showcasing:

Code review interviews are an important part of the hiring process for software developers. They allow employers to assess your technical proficiency, problem-solving abilities, and communication skills. In this expanded version, we will explore each of these skills in more detail to help you prepare for your upcoming interview.

Technical Proficiency and Coding Standards

One of the crucial aspects of a code review interview is your technical proficiency. Employers want to see that you have a solid understanding of coding languages, frameworks, and coding best practices.

When preparing for a code review interview, it’s important to demonstrate your knowledge and adherence to coding standards. Make sure you are familiar with the common coding languages used by the company you are interviewing with. Additionally, stay updated with the latest industry trends and best practices to showcase your commitment to continuous learning.

Having a deep understanding of coding standards not only helps you write clean and maintainable code but also enables you to provide valuable feedback during code reviews. Employers appreciate candidates who can identify potential issues and suggest improvements based on established coding standards.

Problem-Solving Abilities and Debugging

Another key skill that is assessed during a code review interview is your ability to solve problems and debug code. Employers look for candidates who can identify and fix issues efficiently and effectively.

Preparing for the interview involves practicing debugging techniques and familiarizing yourself with popular debugging tools . This includes learning how to use breakpoints, stepping through code, and analyzing error messages. The ability to quickly identify and resolve bugs demonstrates your problem-solving skills and attention to detail.

During the interview, be prepared to explain your thought process when encountering a bug and how you approached debugging it. Employers are interested in understanding your problem-solving approach and how you handle challenges in a real-world coding scenario.

Communication Skills in Code Review

Strong communication skills are critical for success in a code review interview. You should be able to clearly articulate your thoughts, express your ideas, and justify your feedback.

Practicing effective communication, both written and verbal, will greatly enhance your chances of excelling in the interview. Consider joining coding communities, participating in open-source projects, and seeking feedback on your code reviews to improve your communication skills.

During a code review interview, you may be asked to explain your code, provide feedback on someone else’s code, or discuss potential improvements. It’s important to be able to express your thoughts clearly and concisely, while also being receptive to feedback and open to collaboration.

Additionally, being able to justify your feedback is crucial. Employers want to see that you can provide constructive criticism and explain your reasoning behind suggested changes. This demonstrates your ability to think critically and make informed decisions.

By focusing on developing and showcasing your technical proficiency, problem-solving abilities, and communication skills, you will be well-prepared for your code review interview. Remember to practice, stay up-to-date with industry trends, and seek feedback to continuously improve your skills. Good luck!

Pre-Interview Preparation Strategies

Now that you understand the code review interview process and the essential skills required, let’s explore some strategies to help you prepare effectively:

Reviewing Common Coding Languages

Research and familiarize yourself with the coding languages commonly used in the industry or by the company you are interviewing with. This will help you become more comfortable with the codebase you’ll be reviewing during the interview.

Take the time to learn about any specific coding standards or best practices associated with those languages.

For example, if you are interviewing for a web development position, you might want to focus on languages like HTML, CSS, and JavaScript. Understanding the latest features and updates in these languages can give you an edge during the technical interview assessment .

Additionally, it’s beneficial to explore any frameworks or libraries commonly used in conjunction with these languages. This will demonstrate your ability to work with the tools and technologies commonly used in the industry.

Brushing Up on Code Review Best Practices

It’s essential to have a strong understanding of code review best practices. Refresh your knowledge of common code review techniques, such as the use of descriptive commit messages, proper documentation, and writing clean and maintainable code.

When reviewing code, it’s important to focus not only on identifying bugs but also on providing constructive feedback that helps improve the overall quality of the codebase.

One effective way to improve your code review skills is by studying real-world examples. Look for open-source projects on platforms like GitHub and analyze how experienced developers provide feedback and suggestions in their code reviews.

By demonstrating your familiarity with these best practices, you showcase your ability to provide valuable feedback during a code review.

Practicing with Mock Code Review Interviews

One of the most effective ways to prepare for a code review interview is to practice with mock interviews. Find codebases online and simulate the code review process.

Practice providing constructive feedback, identifying bugs, and discussing potential improvements. This will help improve your analytical skills and increase your confidence during the actual interview.

During mock code review interviews, challenge yourself to think critically and consider different perspectives. This will enhance your ability to identify potential issues and suggest alternative solutions.

Additionally, seek feedback from experienced developers or mentors who can provide valuable insights into your code review process. Their guidance can help you refine your skills and approach.

Remember that practice makes perfect, and the more you engage in mock code review interviews, the more comfortable and prepared you will be when facing the real interview.

During the Interview: Tips and Techniques

Once the day of the code review interview arrives, it’s important to stay calm and focused. Here are some tips and techniques to help you navigate the interview successfully:

Navigating the Code Review Process

During the interview, pay close attention to the codebase you are reviewing. Take your time to understand the code and its purpose.

As you dive into the code, analyze its structure, readability, and efficiency. Look for any potential bugs or areas that could be optimized. It’s crucial to have a thorough understanding of the code before providing feedback.

When providing feedback, prioritize the critical issues and discuss them first. Remember to be constructive in your criticism and provide specific suggestions for improvement.

Additionally, consider the overall architecture and design patterns used in the codebase. Evaluate whether they align with industry best practices and discuss any potential improvements or alternative approaches.

Discussing Your Code Effectively

When discussing your code or providing feedback, avoid overcomplicating your explanations. Be concise and make sure you communicate your thoughts clearly.

Use clear and straightforward language to express your ideas. Break down complex concepts into simpler terms to ensure that your points are easily understood by the interviewers.

If you come across a point that you are unsure about, don’t be afraid to ask questions and seek clarification from the interviewers. It’s better to ask for clarification than to make assumptions that could lead to misunderstandings.

Furthermore, consider the potential impact of your suggestions on the codebase and discuss any trade-offs that may arise. This demonstrates your ability to think critically and weigh the pros and cons of different approaches.

Handling Feedback and Criticism

During the interview, you may receive feedback or criticism on your code review comments or thought process. Remember that this is an opportunity for growth.

Listen attentively to the feedback and take it constructively. Reflect on the points raised and consider how you can incorporate the feedback into your future code reviews.

Ask for clarification if needed and use the feedback to improve your skills moving forward. Embrace the learning experience and show your willingness to adapt and grow as a developer.

Remember, the interview is not just about evaluating your technical skills but also your ability to receive and apply feedback effectively.

By demonstrating a growth mindset and a willingness to learn from feedback, you showcase your potential for continuous improvement and professional development.

Post-Interview Reflection and Improvement

After completing a code review interview, it’s essential to reflect on your performance and identify areas for improvement. This reflection process allows you to gain valuable insights and grow as a developer.

During the interview, you had the opportunity to showcase your technical skills and problem-solving abilities. Now, it’s time to analyze your performance and identify both your strengths and areas where you can improve.

Analyzing Your Performance

Take some time to reflect on how you performed during the code review interview. Did you effectively communicate your thoughts and ideas? Were you able to identify issues correctly and provide constructive feedback?

Consider how well you explained your reasoning behind the code changes you suggested. Did you provide clear and concise explanations, or were there areas where you could have been more thorough?

Additionally, think about your ability to collaborate and work as part of a team. Did you actively listen to the interviewer’s feedback and engage in a productive dialogue? Reflect on how well you incorporated their suggestions into your thought process.

Identifying Areas for Improvement

Based on your analysis, it’s time to identify specific areas where you can enhance your skills. This could involve improving your technical knowledge, communication skills, or problem-solving abilities.

Consider setting goals for yourself and creating a plan to achieve them. This might involve self-study, enrolling in online courses, or seeking hands-on practice opportunities. By actively working on these areas, you can continuously improve and become a stronger candidate for future code review interviews.

Continuous Learning and Development in Code Review

Remember that learning is a lifelong process, especially in the ever-evolving field of software development. To stay ahead, it’s crucial to keep up with the latest developments in coding languages, frameworks, and best practices.

Engaging in code review activities outside of coding interviews can be immensely beneficial. Consider contributing to open-source projects or participating in code review sessions with colleagues. These experiences will not only help you sharpen your skills but also expose you to different coding styles and perspectives.

By consistently seeking opportunities for growth and learning, you can position yourself for success in code review interviews. Remember, preparation is key, and with the right mindset and dedication, you can confidently navigate the code review interview and secure your dream job.

So, take the time to reflect on your performance, identify areas for improvement, and commit to continuous learning. With each interview, you’ll gain valuable experience and become a stronger developer.

• Share on Facebook
• Email this Page
• Share on LinkedIn

Teaching Code Review to University Students

Anyone who has worked in software development professionally knows about code review: The idea that developers review the code of other developers to spot errors, propose suggestions for improvement and to ensure that knowledge is shared within the development team.

Code reviews are effective, common in the industry, and at the same time really hard to do. One would think that university would teach you a best practice from the industry — but that is not the case for code reviews.

There are multiple reasons why lecturers in university do not teach students how to do code review:

• They don’t know how to teach it
• They don’t know how to assess it
• They come from an academic background where code review rarely happens

I am a software developer and have done some code reviewing myself. I am also a university lecturer in computer science . To be honest, reviewing code made by others is one of the hardest things I know.

I will outline an approach to teaching code reviews with peer feedback. Beyond teaching students to do code reviews, peer feedback has the added benefits of teaching students about the subject matter and how to think critically.

How to teach code reviews with peer feedback

In essence, the way I propose that you can teach the skill of code review is the following setup:

• Let students submit their code for review prior to the actual submission deadline.
• Ask each student to review code from 2–3 other students using a feedback rubric to help them focus their review.
• When students receive their reviews, ask them to give feedback to the reviewer on the usefulness of the review.
• Finally ask the students to use their received feedback to improve their code for the final submission.

Let students resubmit the work

Receiving feedback is only useful if you can use that feedback for something. Providing a review to someone that can’t use it will still teach both the reviewer and the submitter something valuable. However, the effect is much clearer if students get a chance to improve their submissions based on the feedback.

One of the challenges this brings, is that it takes more time since students will need time to do their reviews and make improvements to their work after submitting the first version of their work. There is really no good solution to this problem.

Another challenge is the potential for increased plagiarism. If all students are working on very similar tasks (like solving a simple programming exercise) then students will (being somewhat rational as they are) steal good ideas and solutions from the work they review. When students are working on more open-ended and different projects, this is less of a problem though.

Let them give feedback on the review

In order to incentivize students to make great reviews, I propose letting them give feedback on the reviews they receive. One way this feedback could be given is by asking the receiver of a review to answer the following survey for each review:

• Constructivity: Is the review helpful and explain how to improve your code? (Possible answers: No needs more work / Somewhat / Yes it was great).
• Specificity: Does the review point to specific things in your code? (Possible answers: No needs more work / Somewhat / Yes it was great).
• Justification: Does the review provide explanations and give reasons and arguments? (Possible answers: No needs more work / Somewhat / Yes it was great).
• Kindness: Is the review kind and uses friendly language? (Possible answers: It was too harsh / It was neutral or friendly).
• Open feedback: Do you have any comments to the reviewer?

Using the answers to the first four questions above, it is even possible to compute a review score — for example by treating “No needs more work” as 0% and “Yes it was great” as 100% and then averaging the scores together). This review score can either be used as a guide for the teacher on which students need more help with their reviews, or (as in my course) even be a part of the final grade in the course.

Some research actually suggests that this approach of giving marks for providing helpful feedback is a great way to encourage students to assess work accurately.

Limit the size and scope of the review task

Reading other people’s code is hard. To make code review effective, refrain from asking students to review too much code at the same time. This resource claims that “… the single best piece of advice we can give is to review between 100 and 300 lines of code at a time and spend 30–60 minutes to review it.”.

Another way to help students provide good reviews is to help them focus their feedback on specific things. Generally, you should not use code review to check if the code is working correctly (that is what tests and a compiler is for). Ask students to focus on style, comments and documentation, modularity, use of testing, error handling, security, algorithms etc. These are things that humans are (still) somewhat useful for checking.

One way to help students focus is by using a feedback rubric. You can present it in the form of a small survey, for example like this:

• Documentation: Is the code properly documented and commented? (Possible answers: It needs more work / Somewhat / Yes it is great). Where should the documentation be better?
• Error handling: Does the code handle errors properly? (Possible answers: It needs more work / Somewhat / Yes it is great). Where should the error-handling be better?
• Suggestions: Provide two suggestions for the author on how to improve the code.

Allow students to object and discuss the reviews

Quality of code is rarely black and white. There will be disagreements, different correct solutions and personal preferences. After students have submitted their feedback on the reviews they received, let them continue the discussion both with each other and with you as the teacher. Having a discussion around the code review is a great way for students to learn from each other and learn to communicate about a technical subject.

If the review process has any influence on the grades that students are getting, it is very important that students have a chance to object and get a teacher evaluation of their work if they disagree. Similarly if the quality of a review contributes to the grade, then they should also be able to object to the feedback on their reviews.

Teaching code review with Eduflow

Beyond teaching university, I am also co-founder of Eduflow, a product for instructors to run engaging online learning experiences (for example peer review). The way we have designed Eduflow is very much in line with the pedagogical design mentioned above.

Students can submit their work either as code-files, iPython notebooks or just as links to Github (this all happens in a submission activity). It is possible to run the entire process of peer review in a double-blind anonymous setting (you can use our peer review flow for this).

Eduflow automatically takes care of assigning reviewers to code in a smart way and allows you to set up a feedback rubric easily. You also get the feedback-on-feedback (through the feedback reflection activity) easily. Finally, instructors get a quick and thorough overview over the entire process so they can quickly get an understanding of what students are excellent at and where they need to focus their teaching.

Edit: As with all good ideas, I am of course not the first person to think of this. In a series of blog posts and finally a thesis project , Mike Conley (who is now a software developer at Mozilla) goes through an experiment on the effectiveness of teaching students to do code reviews through peer assessment. In his work he comes to the conclusion that students learn from reviewing code, that students are able to fairly accurately assess code quality, but also that students generally don’t like to grade the work of their peers (they don’t mind reviewing it — it is just the grading). Part of his setup is letting teaching assistants grade the work first, and then giving students credit based on how close their marks are to those given by the TA — which according to the research I mentioned above might actually have the opposite effect!

Quick navigation

Talk to us the way you prefer, request a demo, get a quote, email sales.

September 23, 2022

Code review best practices on our team

Jonathan Bender

How Stashpad and other startups engage the whole team to build a code review culture that works.

Code reviews might feel like bumper-to-bumper traffic on your morning commute. You’re stuck. You just need to get through it in order to get to your destination.

Code reviews can sap the joy out of your day. Steal focus. Make it hard to concentrate, even if (in reality) you haven’t left your desk all morning .

As a result, you could have a tendency to try and rush through a list of pull requests. Or put them off until they threaten to get in the way of moving a feature forward. But with both approaches you’re missing an opportunity to strengthen the culture of your team.

For Derek Prior, a staff engineering manager at GitHub, code reviews are how you build the right culture at your company.

“Code review is the discipline of discussing your code with your peers that drives a higher standard of coding,” said Prior at RailsConf.

Those discussions around code give you insight into your team, encourage knowledge sharing, and drive innovation. You’re not stuck in code reviews. They’re the path to getting unstuck.

Code reviews can be a grind. They can bring out our worst habits. But, they can also help you understand the needs of your team and forge deeper connections.

By building a good code review culture, you will make a better culture for your team. Here’s how to do it.

1. Find your code review bottleneck.

Before you can change the code review process, you have to understand where it is breaking down. There’s always a bottleneck with code reviews. And if you’re a founder or senior engineer, it may very well be you.

Developers with the most experience are the ones on your team most likely to be asked to check out code. It’s a lot of work. And a lot of weight. A backlog of reviews might even be blocking progress in other areas like shipping a new feature.

Maybe you’ve already recognized the problem. So, you started to train someone. But training takes time and trust. Meanwhile, your backlog of pull requests is growing.

Change begins with acknowledging that someone on your team is carrying too much of the burden. Remember, a senior engineer is often not the only one who can review a piece of code.

Your team wants more ownership. And you’re probably ready to clear your plate. So, how do you lighten your load and give them the opportunity?

2. Assess your team’s attitude and comfort with code reviews.

When you notice that all of your code reviews are being done by the same person or a short list of people, Uma Chingunde, VP of Engineering at Render , recommends asking this question:

“Is everyone feeling confident to do code reviews?”

Even the most functional teams struggle with how to comment in code reviews. In the early stages of remaking your code review process, encourage teammates to remember there’s a human behind the code.

Gergely Orosz, the developer behind the blog and newsletter The Pragmatic Engineer, believes empathy plays a big role in better code review culture .

Start by acknowledging that members of your team might still be learning your guidelines or parts of the code. Then, he recommends focusing on “explaining alternative approaches,” and submitting reviews that are “very positive in tone, celebrating the first few changes to the codebase that the author is suggesting.”

There are lots of reasons why members on your team aren’t taking on code reviews. You won’t know why unless you ask. Here’s how Chingunde suggests digging into what’s happening.

“If someone on the team doesn’t review, then have a chat,” said Chingunde. “You can say, ‘I notice you don’t review.’ It’s possible they don’t feel confident or they don’t get the value.”

Your teammate’s answer will let you know if you need to look at how you’re communicating, sharing knowledge, or assigning code reviews. Spoiler alert: It’s all of the above.

3. Good communication begins with clear, concise pull requests.

Ambiguity is a quick way to side track code reviews. The best outcomes – whether it’s code reviews or brainstorming – come from asking distinct, meaningful questions.

The team at Palantir, in a blog post about code review best practices , has developed a practical method for streamlining the code review process.

“"Only submit complete, self-reviewed (by diff), and self-tested CRs,” notes the Palantir team. “In order to save reviewers’ time, test the submitted changes (i.e., run the test suite) and make sure they pass all builds as well as all tests and code quality checks, both locally and on the CI servers, before assigning reviewers."

Take the time to catch the things that are obvious. You’ll make it easier for the reviewer to get at what’s important and you’ll benefit from insight into challenges you can’t solve on your own.

For Prior, the pull request is the opening of a conversation. The request author provides context – he suggests two paragraphs (focusing on what you’ve learned) for each change – to help the reviewer understand why a given code choice was made. That explanation is also relevant to future discussions because it becomes part of the commit.

The reviewer of the code, in turn, should “ask questions rather than making demands.” By framing potential changes as questions, you’ll encourage discussion that makes space for multiple perspectives and the chance to share knowledge about why a given idea could be the best way forward.

4. Track how long it takes for code reviews to be completed.

As you begin to incorporate more of your team into the code review process, things could naturally slow down.

So, what should you do if code reviews are taking too long? Chingunde thinks this is a great time for another check in with your engineers.

“If people take too long to do reviews, is it because they’re too busy doing their own thing? Or is it because they find it hard to review the code?”

It’s typically some combination of other responsibilities and unclear expectations that may lead to a slower pace of code reviews. In order to overcome that inertia, you will have to intentionally build time into your team’s schedule and reassess how you assign code reviews.

5. Optimize your schedule by using pause points for code reviews.

Code reviews don’t have to be a drag on productivity. By building in time around natural pause points, you can avoid disrupting your flow and the cost of context switching. Take the 30 minutes before lunch or after the morning stand-up to review code.

Regular time set aside for reviews minimizes begins to build a habit. You might even use whatever comes next – an espresso or walk around the block – as a reward for completing a code review while you’re establishing that habit.

This strategy is a way to effectively use the time when you’re transitioning away from meetings or coming out of deep work. If it’s following a stand up meeting, the code review could even begin with a short dialogue with the author of a pull request to help give you additional context or emphasis beyond what’s been typed.

6. Assign code reviews to establish expectations for your team.

Your team might be operating under the assumption that code reviews aren’t their responsibility. Asking for someone to contribute isn’t enough to break that assumption. You have to assign code reviews to each member of your team to make it clear this is a shared responsibility.

There are a number of ways to structure assignments. Here are two ideas that could work for your team: Pair engineers together on tasks so you don’t need separate reviews or assign reviews via a rotation system.

Pairs are a useful construct because they facilitate dialogue. And you don’t need to explicitly assign someone to a review. You write each piece of logic as a pair – one person “driving” (typing) – as the other person reads and discusses their code. There will inevitably be more ideas shared and different approaches.

You’re introducing a partner to speed up the pace of play. While pairing, you automatically have a built-in code review as you write the code together. That knowledge – that someone will back you up – also alleviates the stress of feeling like you have to handle everything.

We’re currently evaluating automatic code review assignments . Creating an automatic assignment rotation helps both the author of a pull request and the assignee. Make sure there’s a clear way for team members to tell everyone, whether in Slack or somewhere else, that they’ve claimed a code review.

An automated system reduces decision fatigue for your engineers. It eliminates the feeling that code review may be a burden and the cost of trying to remember who you last tapped for a review assignment. Perhaps, most importantly, it supports a culture of code reviewing by making it clear that everyone will take a turn.

You can always add in an option to override the automatic assignment if you need someone on your team with specific skills to review your code.

Building a sustainable code review culture encourages productive debates and unexpected insights. Team ownership of code strengthens relationships by defusing conflicts and preventing burnout.

Your team might get by without a well-defined code review process. But establishing clear practices and expectations around code review can help your team better share the load and move forward more smoothly and efficiently.

Photo by renee_ek on Unsplash.

Make your Work Note-Worthy

Also available for .

Stay In Touch

Subscribe to the Stashpad Newsletter to receive occasional product updates and company announcements.

Stashpad Docs

Stashpad Lists

Meet the Team

Tiny Markdown Course

Copyright Caeli Inc. 2024

Help us learn about your current experience with the documentation. Take the survey !

Code Review Guidelines

Getting your merge request reviewed, approved, and merged, domain experts, reviewer roulette, approval guidelines.

CODEOWNERS approval

Acceptance checklist, performance, reliability, and availability, observability instrumentation, documentation, the responsibility of the merge request author, the responsibility of the reviewer, the responsibility of the maintainer, dogfooding the reviewers feature, best practices, having your merge request reviewed, requesting a review, volunteering to review, reviewing a merge request, merging a merge request, community contributions, taking over a community merge request, the right balance, gitlab-specific concerns, customer critical merge requests, help & feedback, feature availability and product trials.

For problems setting up or using this feature (depending on your GitLab subscription).

Get the Reddit app

Join us at https://agilewatercooler.com

What does your code review process look like?

I have a team of 7 I'm working to introduce to concepts like source control, testing, etc and overall agile development. Things have been basically ad hoc free for all development for years. When a developer on your team is done with writing code, what's the process they go through? What automated and manual steps are there?

By continuing, you agree to our User Agreement and acknowledge that you understand the Privacy Policy .

Enter the 6-digit code from your authenticator app

You’ve set up two-factor authentication for this account.

Enter a 6-digit backup code

Create your username and password.

Reddit is anonymous, so your username is what you’ll go by here. Choose wisely—because once you get a name, you can’t change it.

Reset your password

Enter your email address or username and we’ll send you a link to reset your password

Check your inbox

An email with a link to reset your password was sent to the email address associated with your account

Choose a Reddit account to continue