The Neglected Pillar: Why Code Reviews Are the Least Prioritized Aspect of Software Development
(and why this mindset needs to change)
In the fast-paced world of software development, code reviews often find themselves at the bottom of the priority list. Developers are perpetually under pressure to deliver features and fixes, leaving little room for the thorough review of each other's work. This oversight can have far-reaching consequences, from introducing bugs to stalling project progress. Let's explore why code reviews are often neglected and how we can address this critical issue.
The Pressure Cooker: Time Constraints and Developer Burnout
What Usually Happens:
Software developers work in an environment where deadlines loom large, and every minute counts. Amidst this pressure, taking the time to meticulously review code can seem like a luxury rather than a necessity. As a result, reviews are rushed or skipped altogether, leading to subpar code quality.
How We Could Do Better:
Allocating specific times in the workday for code reviews ensures that reviews are given the attention they deserve. Prioritizing code reviews as a critical task rather than an afterthought can significantly improve code quality and team efficiency.
The "First-Fault Fallacy"
What Usually Happens:
Reviewers often stop at the first issue they encounter in a pull request (PR) and send it back for corrections. This piecemeal approach forces developers to fix one problem at a time, followed by another extended wait period (typically 12-72 hours) for the next review. This cycle repeats, causing significant delays and frustration.
How We Could Do Better:
Encouraging reviewers to complete a full review before sending feedback can break this cycle. Comprehensive reviews help identify all issues upfront, allowing developers to address them in one go, reducing the back-and-forth and speeding up the overall process.
The Reviewer’s Dilemma: Approval Bias
What Usually Happens:
When a reviewer sees that someone else has already reviewed the code, they may:
Stop Reviewing: If the code has comments or was rejected by another reviewer, they might not invest their own time in examining it further.
Blind Approval: Conversely, they might immediately approve the code, assuming the previous reviewer has already done a thorough job, thus nullifying the benefits of requiring multiple reviewers.
How We Could Do Better:
Fostering a culture of accountability and collaboration is key. Reviewers should be encouraged to perform their reviews independently, regardless of previous feedback, and discuss any disagreements in a collaborative manner to ensure a thorough review process.
Scope Creep in Reviews
What Usually Happens:
Many reviewers fall into the trap of commenting on code changes that are beyond the scope of the current review. This includes making suggestions about pre-existing code or requesting rewrites for unrelated features. This can sidetrack the developer and delay the actual objective of the code change.
How We Could Do Better:
Training reviewers to stay focused on the scope of the current change request can mitigate this issue. Feedback on unrelated code should be documented separately for future consideration, allowing the current changes to proceed without unnecessary delays.
The Pursuit of Perfection
What Usually Happens:
A significant number of reviewers reject PRs for the sake of academic correctness, prioritizing perfect code over functional code that meets the requirements. This pursuit of perfection can lead to missed deadlines and increased frustration among developers.
How We Could Do Better:
Balancing the pursuit of perfection with practicality is essential. Code should be functional, meet requirements, and be of good quality, but it doesn't need to be flawless to move forward. Encouraging reviewers to focus on the critical aspects of the code and accepting good quality work can help maintain progress and meet deadlines.
Conclusion
By understanding the common pitfalls in the code review process and implementing these improvements, we can elevate the quality of our software, enhance team productivity, and foster a more collaborative and efficient development environment. Code reviews are not just a box to be checked—they are a cornerstone of robust software development that deserves our full attention and commitment.