Voici comment vous pouvez effectuer des revues de code efficaces et améliorer la qualité des applications grâce aux commentaires.

Code reviews have two main goals: code quality gates and sharing knowledge among colleagues. Avoid reviewing anything that can be automated, like code style checks. Instead, break down reviews into clear steps: database changes, API adjustments, interface updates, and the implementation itself. It will save a lot of time. While the first goal is straightforward, the second requires attention. Identify knowledge gaps and share insights to bridge them.

Utilize automated tools for thorough code review. Implement quality gates to prevent check-ins that violate established rules. Define and maintain review patterns to ensure consistent standards and regularly update review patterns to reflect current best practices. Schedule periodic code reviews by subject matter experts. Keep a record of the decisions taken throughout the review and document the lessons learned. Mandate peer reviews to enhance code quality collaboratively. Rotate reviewers regularly to diversify the feedback.

I agree. It is important to do a swot analysis and prioritize the things you need to improve. But over and above set out the time that you will be dedicated to work on the priorities. Otherwise, you might end up with a growing list of goals.

Define the Purpose: Clearly state the primary purpose of the code review. This could include ensuring code correctness, improving performance, enhancing readability, and maintaining coding standards. Establish Criteria: Set specific criteria for what the review should address. This might include checking for bugs, adherence to style guides, efficiency of algorithms, and proper use of design patterns. Set Review Standards: Create and communicate standards for what constitutes acceptable code. This includes style guidelines, naming conventions, testing requirements, and documentation standards.

Constant review is important. The review should start from the solutioning phase. There should be Architecture review and then rereviwed by ARB Architecture review board. Later in all phases of analysis, design and development phases to ensure quality of the deliverable

Standardize the patterns used to solve the problems, and document the exceptions to the rule. In your code reviews ensure the whole team are familiar with the patterns used and be patterns be thoroughly interegated and tested before adding to your design library.

Communication is always key. However, agreement on the high level conceptual design helps to guide the discussion. Prototyping the risk areas of the code by the developer is good starting point for discussion.

There's no magic here. Write any feedback down and provide it to the developer ahead of time. Don't be cryptic, terse, or rude. Now is not the time to prove how smart you are. You're already showing that by reviewing someone's code. In many cases written feedback alone is sufficient. If not, it gives the developer a starting point to formulate their own follow-up questions and responses. If written feedback isn't enough, sit down (virtually or in person) and give the developer enough time to chat about the prior written exchange.

Be a function here - write about changes, not about a person. Solve the problem, don't sort things out. And at the same time, don’t forget about the goal.

"Communication" doesn't just mean pointing out errors, ambiguity, etc. - it's a conversation. The reviewer isn't presumed to know everything and the author of the PR isn't presumed to be wrong until proven otherwise. Constructively pointing out missteps as well as asking for clarification can lead to surprising results. Sometimes you find someone trying to do something in a vacuum where the fuller effects of their changes weren't considered. Sometimes the reviewer may find themselves out of touch with current state of design. Without conversation these won't be known until possibly too late. And don't just leave these surfaced discoveries in old PR threads. If they're important details, they need to be documented for wider accessibility.