https://www.steveonstuff.com/2022/02/09/nitpicky-code-reviews-are-are-drag
This post from Steve Barnegren discusses his issues with the current state of team code review. Specifically, the blog takes time to point out the issues with being overly obsessive about nice formatting. It is one thing to point out flaws in logic and potential failures the system may have, giving feedback on how it might be improved or fixed, and another to, for example, say a ternary operator should be used instead of an if-else. The argument is made that a majority of ‘formatting issues’ of the variety I’ve given do not give enough value for the time they take between maintainers and developers.
Personally speaking, I like to have my code in a very consistent format. If just one thing is in a different format, it seriously bothers me. It wasn’t until recently when I started working on a project as a member of WSU’s Computer Science Club that I personally had to work in a team larger than two people, and in doing so I found out pretty quickly that many people do not hold the same standards to their code.
One team member very specifically does not care at all about how the code is formatted, focusing solely on efficiency and output. At the beginning of the project, I gave pushback on this, believing that the code he was writing was very poor if we wanted to maintain standards, but I was assured it wasn’t a big deal. All of us were working on different parts of the project and generally were disconnected from one another until it came time to connect things. I specifically was on my own creating the GUI of the project. However, the issue finally came when it was time for me to start working on the backend. What I found was a disaster, not in terms of functionality necessarily; there were definitely errors in output, but that wasn’t my concern. The real disaster was the cleanliness of the code. Trying to figure out what was going on, how things were calculated, what and where things were stored, it was a lot of tracing.
By the time I finally understood what was going on, it took me very little time to do what was asked of me, but the process to get there should not have taken that long. The person who originally wrote the backend is now working to create extensive documentation so that way people don’t have to go through that process again. If there had been consistency in the formatting of the code, clear demonstration of how things functioned, and precautions taken to make sure things did not get out of hand, I feel it wouldn’t have been nearly as bad.
Although I hear this blog’s thoughts, I hear them echoed in the person who originally said it wasn’t a big deal. In my opinion, the condition for a team to have code reviews like the one Steve recommends must be that all team members already agreed and showed the capability to write code that is clean and makes sense, or else you get the horror I had to go through. Generally, I think code reviews should be unique to every team, because the same rules don’t work for everybody, and that the nitpicks have their place in teams.
From the blog CS@Worcester – CS ZStomski by Zachary Stomski and used with permission of the author. All other rights reserved by the author.