[city41]

I sometimes find code reviews can create a "gap" in the center where neither person fully vets the change. The reviewer thinks "surely the author fully tested it, I'm just added assurance." And the author thinks "they approved the change so it must be good" and the end result can be code that is less reviewed overall.

If someone pushes a change without anyone reviewing it, I sometimes find their fear of making a mistake causes them to scrutinize the change more than if it had been reviewed. Not always of course, depends on the context and people involved.

[peterhunt]

I think the fix for this is for every pull request to include a written test plan. Usually this is just a few bullets (and often is just "ran the test suite" if it's applicable). It's on the author to come up with a test plan and execute it. It's on the reviewer to review both the code and the test plan and ensure that the test plan is sufficient.

[newaccount74]

I had a coworker who seemed to just open PRs as a part of the development workflow. As soon as the feature kind of works, they open a PR, wait for someone to complain about problems, fix them, ask for another review, get more complaints about bugs, rinse and repeat. If the reviewer didn't pay attention, they would always merge broken code.