Skip to content

Code Review Process

Jump to bottom
AlexZorkin edited this page May 13, 2025 · 1 revision

Code Review Process

This document outlines the code review process for the LCFS project. Effective code reviews are crucial for maintaining code quality, sharing knowledge, and fostering a collaborative development environment. This addresses requirements for ticket #2410.

1. Purpose of Code Reviews

  • Improve Code Quality: Catch bugs, logical errors, and deviations from coding standards.
  • Ensure Readability & Maintainability: Verify that code is clear, understandable, and easy to maintain.
  • Knowledge Sharing: Help team members learn about different parts of the codebase and new techniques.
  • Mentorship: Provide opportunities for junior developers to learn from senior developers, and vice-versa.
  • Collective Ownership: Foster a sense of shared responsibility for the codebase.
  • Validate Against Requirements: Ensure the implemented solution meets the intended requirements of the feature or bug fix.

2. Before Requesting a Review (Author's Responsibility)

Before submitting a Pull Request (PR) for review, the author should:

  1. Self-Review: Review your own code first. Check for typos, obvious errors, and adherence to style guides.
  2. Test Thoroughly: Ensure all Testing Procedures have been followed:
    • Relevant unit and integration tests are written and pass.
    • E2E tests (if applicable to the changes) pass.
    • Manual testing of the feature/fix has been performed.
  3. Ensure CI Checks Pass: All automated checks in the CI pipeline (linters, formatters, automated tests, builds) must be passing.
  4. Clear PR Description: Write a clear and concise PR description:
    • Explain what changes were made and why.
    • Link to the relevant issue(s) in the issue tracker.
    • Provide clear steps for reviewers to test or verify the changes.
    • Include screenshots or GIFs for UI changes.
  5. Keep PRs Focused and Manageable:
    • Submit small, focused PRs where possible. Large PRs are difficult and time-consuming to review effectively.
    • If a feature is large, break it down into smaller, logical PRs.
  6. Check for Debugging Code: Remove any temporary debugging code (e.g., console.log, print statements not intended for production).

3. The Review Process (Reviewer's Responsibility)

Reviewers should aim to provide constructive, respectful, and timely feedback.

3.1. Understanding the Changes

  • Read the PR description and linked issues to understand the context and purpose of the changes.
  • Try to understand the overall approach before diving into line-by-line details.

3.2. Key Areas to Review

  • Functionality: Does the code work as intended and meet the requirements?
    • If possible, pull down the branch and test the changes locally.
  • Correctness: Are there any logical errors, race conditions, or edge cases missed?
  • Readability & Simplicity: Is the code clear, concise, and easy to understand? Could it be simpler?
  • Maintainability: Is the code well-structured? Will it be easy to modify or debug in the future?
  • Adherence to Standards: Does the code follow Coding Standards and Conventions?
  • Testing: Are there sufficient tests for the changes? Do the tests cover important scenarios and edge cases? (Testing Procedures)
  • Security: Are there any potential security vulnerabilities introduced? (See Security Guidelines for Developers)
  • Performance: Are there any obvious performance bottlenecks or inefficiencies?
  • Documentation: Is new code adequately commented? Is any related documentation (e.g., READMEs, other wiki pages) updated if necessary?
  • Naming: Are variables, functions, and classes named clearly and appropriately?
  • Error Handling: Is error handling robust and user-friendly (if applicable)?

3.3. Providing Feedback

  • Be Specific: Refer to specific lines of code or files.
  • Be Constructive: Offer suggestions for improvement rather than just criticism.
  • Explain Your Reasoning: If you suggest a change, explain why it's better.
  • Distinguish Importance: Differentiate between critical issues, important suggestions, and minor nits (e.g., use prefixes like "Nitpick:" or "Suggestion:").
  • Use GitHub's Review Tools: Add comments directly to the code in the PR. Use "Request changes," "Approve," or "Comment" appropriately.
  • Be Timely: Aim to review PRs within a reasonable timeframe (e.g., 1-2 business days, as per team agreement).

4. After Receiving Feedback (Author's Responsibility)

  • Acknowledge Feedback: Respond to comments, indicating whether you agree or want to discuss further.
  • Make Necessary Changes: Address the feedback by making code changes, pushing new commits to the same PR branch.
  • Clarify if Needed: If you disagree with a suggestion or don't understand it, discuss it respectfully with the reviewer.
  • Re-request Review: Once changes are made, notify the reviewer(s) that the PR is ready for another look (GitHub often does this automatically when you push to the PR branch).

5. Approval and Merging

  • Approval: Typically, at least one approval (or as per team policy) is required before a PR can be merged.
  • CI Checks: All CI checks must be passing.
  • Merging: Once approved and checks pass, the PR can be merged into the target branch (e.g., main or develop).
  • Delete Branch: The feature branch should be deleted after the PR is merged.

6. Number of Reviewers

  • Action: Define the team's policy on the number of reviewers required (e.g., one for most PRs, two for critical changes).

A positive and collaborative code review culture is key to a healthy and productive development team. Treat reviews as a learning opportunity for everyone involved.

Clone this wiki locally