| As somebody who's done a bunch of reviews on the platform you realize a bunch of things about development that we don't want to admit. When I review code for my own team (for my day job), there are many times where internal pressures on my time will make me prematurely stamp LGTM on one of my co-workers PRs that I trust. When I'm doing reviews on PullRequest I remove the "trust" marker in my review along with this strange thing called "economic compensation" where I'm paid to spend time working on it, rather than having somebody ding me for not completing some other task that needs to ship this week so I spend more time reviewing the details. I think there are a few levels of code reviews that should be in place. * Automated checks eslint/typescript as examples, you would be surprised at how many companies don't have this! * Best practices -- react hooks, golang interfaces, calling conventions... * Testing -- are the tests structure to test good and bad, are they brittle?
* Security -- Did you build the right IAM role in terraform, did somebody just checkin their GITHUB key (ok, that should be automated). * Performance -- Is that Promise.all going to dispatch 1000 calls in parallel. * Architecture and inter dependancies, there is a limit for a 3rd party here. Now if you're the Lead/Architect on a project and at a minimum you can outsource the Best practices / Testing portion of the pull request to a 3rd party you now can focus on the architectural dependancies that are really what you care about. As an architect you can easily provide reviewer notes to the person doing the review that you are interested in focusing on specific areas of improvement across your team. Giving you the coverage to focus on the high level issues and inter dependancies while not focusing on variable names or test coverage. Your time is valuable, you should spend it on character development not on the punctuation. |