[ckdarby]

I understand and it is a bit of a struggle I'm facing in the writing to have the reader believe that a large part of what is holding them back is this very thing. A lot of my technical audience has the sense of, I should just be able to make my change and shouldn't need multiple eyes along the journey for feedback.

I had an experience very similar to your, "just add a couple of columns". That experience which I'll explain was the final straw to getting me to start drafting the book.

An individual at an enterprise company made a PR to change the code from handling a single item to a list of items. Of course this showed promising performance because it reduced a bunch of the overhead operations that used to be O(N) down to some sub N amount.

It took me about 3 hours to fully understand the surrounding systems. At that point I did not review the implementation, BUT instead the problem. A system was falling behind and timing out. This implementation did help fix the issue by batching API calls. While I as the reviewer did the "laying groundwork" portion I realized that a lot of the API calls themselves did not need to be triggered in the first place.

Looking purely at the implementation for review was a LGTM (Looks Good To Me) kind of review because I could not weigh out the solutions to the problem without the information on the systems to understand where the problem could be.