Question 1

How do I do a good code review?

Accepted Answer

Good code review process: Start with understanding: Read PR description, understand context and goals, review related design docs if complex. Review structure: Functionality first - does it work?, design second - is approach right?, implementation third - code quality details, tests fourth - coverage adequate?. Feedback format: Critical issues first (bugs, security, design), important issues second (readability, performance), suggestions last (style nitpicks, alternative approaches). Tone: Constructive not critical, explain reasoning, suggest alternatives, ask questions for clarification. Timing: Within 24-48 hours ideally, don't block indefinitely. Scope: Focus on important issues, don't nitpick excessively, distinguish blocking vs optional. Good review = thorough + constructive. Bad review = vague comments, personal preferences, blocking for minor style. Check function, design, quality, tests. Be specific, explain why.

Question 2

What should I check in a code review?

Accepted Answer

Code review checklist: Functionality: Does code do what's intended? Edge cases handled? Error handling present? Design: Is approach appropriate? Could it be simpler? Fits existing architecture? Readability: Is code understandable? Naming clear? Comments helpful (not redundant)? Complexity: Is it unnecessarily complex? Can it be simplified? Too clever? Security: Input validated? No injection risks? Secrets not hardcoded? Access controls correct? Performance: Efficient enough for use case? Unnecessary loops/recursion? Memory usage reasonable? Tests: Unit tests exist? Edge cases tested? Tests meaningful (not just passing)? Style: Follows team conventions? Consistent with rest of code? Not blocking for style unless critical. Check all areas systematically. Functionality first, then quality. Prioritize blocking issues over nitpicks.

Question 3

How do I give constructive code review feedback?

Accepted Answer

Constructive feedback format: Be specific: Point to exact line, describe specific issue, not vague 'this is bad'. Explain reasoning: Why is this an issue? What's the impact? What's the alternative? Offer alternatives: Suggest specific fix, show code example, explain trade-offs. Separate severity: Blocking issues (must fix before merge), important suggestions (should fix), nitpicks (optional). Use questions: 'Could this be simpler?' instead of 'This is too complex', 'What happens if input is null?' instead of 'You didn't handle null'. Balance negative with positive: Acknowledge good approaches, praise clean code, not just criticism. Phrase constructively: 'Consider renaming for clarity' not 'Bad name', 'This could be simplified' not 'This is messy'. Constructive = improvement-focused. Negative = discouraging. Specific, explain, suggest, ask questions, balance positive.

Question 4

How should authors prepare PRs for review?

Accepted Answer

Author preparation for code review: PR size: Keep small (200-400 lines ideal), one logical change, easier to review, faster feedback. Description: Explain what change does, why needed, how tested, any context reviewers need, link to related issues/tickets. Self-review: Review own code before submitting, catch obvious issues, check your own checklist. Tests: Include tests for new code, ensure tests pass, make tests meaningful. Draft status: Use draft for work-in-progress, don't request review until ready, update description when ready. Breaking changes: Highlight breaking changes in description, explain migration path. Complex changes: Consider design doc first, discuss approach before implementing, get early feedback. Author preparation = faster review. Unprepared PRs = delays, back-and-forth. Small PRs, good description, self-review, tests included.

Question 5

How do I respond to code review feedback?

Accepted Answer

Responding to review feedback: Accept valid feedback: Acknowledge issue, fix as suggested, thank reviewer, learn from the comment. Discuss disagreements: Explain your reasoning, ask clarifying questions, consider reviewer's perspective, reach consensus. Push back appropriately: If reviewer wrong, explain why with evidence, but be open to learning. Don't take personally: Feedback on code not on you, reviewers want better code, learn from patterns. Respond timely: Don't let PR stall, respond within 24 hours, even if just acknowledging. Make changes visible: Push fixes clearly, mark comments as resolved, show what changed. Ask for clarification: If comment unclear, ask, don't guess and make wrong change. Thank reviewers: Acknowledge their time and help, build positive review culture. Response = constructive dialogue. Defensiveness = slow progress. Accept valid feedback, discuss disagreements, thank reviewers.

Code Review Best Practices Guide

Review Checklist

Review Focus Areas

Reviewer Feedback Tips

Author Best Practices

Code Review Guidelines