TL; Dr: We have created a software review guide to align the expectations, improve the quality of the feedback, and make reviews feel cooperating instead of maintaining the gate. This is what success for us.
The problem we have seen
We have not appointed to write a software review guide to be official or heavy for the process. We have written this because our reviews were inconsistent and unorganized, and sometimes it is not useful. The developers were not sure of what was expected of them when reviewing or reviewing, and the quality of the feedback varied greatly.
We needed to align not only about how to review code, but about the reason we did this in the first place.
While we dug in the problem, we realized that the lack of consistency was not only What He was reviewing it- was too how Reactions are connected. How to deliver comments so much that it was often difficult to know the difference between the question, the proposal or the required change. As a result, each indicator of interconnection requires an additional clarification before it is spent, which slows down everything.
Why did we write evidence?
We just wanted to solve tactical issues; We wanted to create a common understanding of what seemed to have a good review in our team. Without this basis, even experienced developers were working with various assumptions.
We also saw the guide as a tool for On board the plane New team members faster, Reducing the friction of the reviewAnd building a culture where the reviews were cooperative, respectful and consistent. Instead of relying on tribal knowledge or guessing, we wanted clear expectations that everyone can indicate and develop together.
What is in the guide?
The guide covers no philosophy and Practical mechanics By reviewing a good symbol on our team.
We have started the purpose: the code of code is a way to exchange knowledge, ensure the ability to maintain, and early architectural issues- not only to arrest typographical errors or apply style.
From there, we broke things up to:
-
Reference responsibilitiesWhat you are looking for (for example, clarity, structure, test coverage), and what to avoid (NitPicking without context).
-
The responsibilities of the author: How to write a good description of public relations, how to request comments, and how to respond to them.
-
Trends and communication: Always assume a good intention, preferably questions over demands, and do not let the dispute become personal.
-
Expectations are transformed: The extent of the speed of the review, and when it is acceptable to postpone.
-
Common Moods: Bikeshedding, “Drive -By” reviews, and excessive avoiding personal preference.
The idea was to make the process be predicted without being rigid and enabling everyone to participate with confidence, regardless of the level of experience.
The same evidence is a cooperative project. Any person in the team can suggest modifications and contribute to this. This approach guarantees that the document reflects the advanced needs and visions of the team, and continue to improve over time.
To reduce mystery in reviews, we provided a simple but effective system. The auditors record their comments with one of three signs:
-
Req – Required change.
-
Opt – Optional suggestion.
-
QQ – Clarification question.
These initiatives helped auditors clearly communicate the intention and made it easy for authors to set the priorities of the responses. It is also improving the tone and reducing friction, especially in the largest PRS. There are no required tools – just a stuck habit.
What has already changed
The effect was immediate. The total quality of reviews has improved significantly- the reactions have become more clear, more implemented and more consistent. The developers should no longer guess the comments that were prevented and were suggestions.
For public relations authors, this meant a faster and more confident repetition. They can quickly determine what to address to go forward and what can be discussed reasonably or even rejected. Reviews are less than government and more than cooperation.
The shift in the latest tone also the difference. By framing the comments clearly, the discussions remained focused and respectful. The operation felt more feelings between its peers, not a step to check or guard the gate. He encouraged the studied dialogue and raised the baseline of what we expect and contribute to every review.
Advice for other teams
Start small and focus on the purpose of the process. I agree on what the code review is, not just how to do this. The joint document can go a long way to align expectations – simple habits such as bad comments can significantly improve clarity and tone without adding public expenditures.
