The code review process is a crucial part of the development cycle, yet it often doesn’t get the attention it deserves. Some code review practices end up causing more harm than good. Small missteps can turn code reviews into a frustrating experience for both the reviewer and the developer submitting the code.
In this post, we’ll discuss the most common mistakes in code reviews and, more importantly, how to avoid them. If you’ve ever wondered how to improve your code reviews and make them more productive, keep reading!
Treating Code Review as a Simple Checklist
One of the most common mistakes I see in code reviews is treating them as a mere checklist. Imagine this: you open the code, check if it compiles, look for obvious errors, and that’s it. Simple, right? But this approach can be problematic.
Code reviews go beyond ensuring the code works or meets requirements. They’re about making sure the code is readable, maintainable, and sustainable. When you treat code reviews as a checklist, you might overlook important aspects such as:
- Unclear variable names.
- Unnecessary complexity.
- Potential refactoring opportunities to simplify the code.
Instead of just skimming through, try to truly understand the code. Ask yourself: Would I be able to maintain this code six months from now? Think about the long-term impact of what you’re reviewing, not just whether it passes tests or fixes the current bug.
Providing Vague Feedback
One of the most frustrating mistakes in code reviews is giving vague feedback. Imagine working on a feature for hours, submitting it for review, and receiving a comment like “improve this.” But what exactly needs improvement? Is the logic flawed? Is the formatting off? Vague feedback is not only frustrating but also unhelpful.
To avoid this, clarity is key. When reviewing code, specify what is unclear or what could be improved. Instead of saying “improve this,” explain why. For example, “this function is too long; breaking it into smaller methods might improve readability” is much more useful. This kind of feedback not only highlights the problem but also offers a possible solution, giving the developer a clear direction on how to proceed.
Moreover, good code reviews aren’t just about pointing out mistakes. They should also acknowledge what was done well. If a solution is elegant or a complex problem is handled efficiently, say so! A balanced approach that includes positive reinforcement makes the process much more constructive and productive.
Ignoring Tests
Another common mistake in code reviews is neglecting tests. Often, the focus is on the newly implemented functionality, and tests are overlooked. This is a serious issue. Tests are the foundation of system stability, ensuring that new features work correctly and that changes don’t break existing functionality.
During the review, it’s crucial to verify whether the new code is properly tested. This doesn’t just mean checking if tests exist but also evaluating their quality. Poorly written tests might go unnoticed, but it’s the reviewer’s responsibility to ensure they cover critical scenarios and are robust enough to handle unexpected behavior. Reviewing tests also fosters a strong testing culture within the team, which is beneficial in the long run.
Continuous integration tools can help by providing automatic feedback on test failures. However, the reviewer’s critical eye is irreplaceable. If a pull request lacks tests, ask why and suggest including them before approving the changes.
Failing to Explain the Context
Sometimes, reviewers forget that the developer might not have the same level of experience or project knowledge. This results in reviews that lack explanations about why certain changes are necessary or why a particular approach isn’t ideal.
Without understanding the reasoning behind suggested changes, the developer may not learn from the review, leading to recurring mistakes.
Whenever you suggest a change, explain the context behind it. Don’t assume that everyone on the team has the same knowledge. Code reviews are an opportunity to share knowledge and align the team on best practices.
Focusing Only on New Code
Many code reviews focus only on the lines that were recently modified. While this makes sense to some extent, as the goal is to ensure new features work correctly, this narrow focus can be problematic. Code is interconnected, and a change in one part may impact other areas of the application.
If you only review new code, you might miss these interdependencies. A seemingly harmless change could introduce a bug in another module or break an existing feature. Reviewing code within a broader context is essential to avoid unexpected side effects.
Additionally, code reviews are an opportunity for continuous improvement. If you notice older code that could be refactored or optimized, suggest improvements. The goal isn’t just to approve what’s new but to ensure the entire codebase gets better over time.
Rushing Through Code Reviews
With tight deadlines and delivery pressure, it’s common for code reviews to be rushed. However, when reviews are done hastily, errors go unnoticed. Quick reviews compromise code quality, often leading to bugs that surface in production and require rework.
It’s important to allocate adequate time for reviews. This doesn’t mean spending hours on a single pull request, but rather giving it the necessary attention to identify issues, suggest improvements, and ensure the code aligns with team standards.
Automation tools can help by handling trivial aspects like formatting and style checks, allowing reviewers to focus on what truly matters: logic, performance, and maintainability.
Ignoring Design and Architecture
Sometimes, due to delivery pressure, aspects like design and architecture get overlooked during code reviews. This is a critical mistake. Poorly structured code is difficult to maintain and scale. Over time, this leads to a disorganized codebase filled with technical debt.
During reviews, it’s valuable to question the structure of the code and whether it follows architectural guidelines. If a proposed solution can be improved or simplified, suggest alternatives. Code reviews are a great time to align on design best practices and ensure the code evolves in a healthy way.
Discussing these aspects not only improves code quality but also helps the team grow technically, fostering a deeper understanding of good architectural principles.
Lack of Follow-Up After Code Review
Finally, one easily overlooked mistake is failing to follow up on suggested changes. Often, reviewers point out improvements, but they either aren’t implemented correctly or get forgotten. Without proper follow-up, the same issues can persist over time.
The ideal approach is to document follow-up actions and, if necessary, schedule quick meetings to review the progress of suggested changes. This ensures that issues identified during reviews are actually addressed and prevents unresolved problems from piling up.
Final Thoughts
Code review isn’t just a technical process—it’s also an opportunity for team growth. When done correctly, it not only improves code quality but also strengthens collaboration and learning among developers.
