Great talk, only bad point I would say is that the beginning scenario's were a touch confusing; it took me a little while to get what was going on.. Other than that; it was great!
Very worthwhile talk on code reviews and how to do them correctly — as well as how to spot if you’re not! Touched on the useful tools for the job as well, which are just as important as the human review.
Felt a bit too high-level. The talk emphasised the need for code review well enough, and mentioned most the core tools for the automated part of a review; but while a lot of reference was made to checking for duplicate code, it never once actually mentioned phpcpd as a tool for identifying duplication.
As an intro for those not doing code reviews already, it would have been a good introduction... for those of us already using those tools on a regular basis, I think it missed that audience.
The most interesting part was the look at sonar, but I felt that this was an all-too brief summary of sonar features. I'd hoped for a more detailed look at sonar for those of us who already do code review on a regular basis, and are already using the other automated tools mentioned.
Great talk, but I would have appreciated more depth on Sonar and a couple of other tools. I was also a little surprised that Facebook's Phabricator wasn't mentioned (as it seems to cover a number of the requirements by itself).
Though I am one of the main reviewers at the company I work for, it was good to pick up a few new things to do and a couple of ideas for new approaches.
A greatly entertaining presentation that provided a good high(ish) level of information regarding the checks that need to be carried out prior to performing a code review (PHPCS, PDepend, PHPCPD etc).
One thing I think would have been good to hear would have been to define some of the parameters around who fulfils what role and why. We all know there are developers with more domain knowledge than us but what makes them right in the first place, especially when it comes to carrying out code reviews?
The subject was well presented with nice slides. The few scenarios were a bit tricky to follow and I think this could be done in a better way. I would also have liked to see, with perhaps just a screenshot, on how you would do code reviews with github and glassfish.
Code Reviews ironically appear to be more about people than code, and Sebastien hinted at this by suggesting that reviewers should not use the word 'You', but instead use 'It'.
Sebastien covered alot of tech tools - which I didn't find useful, as I already use them.
If I could add an suggestions, then I would appreciate hearing about difficult situations that occur in Code Reviews such as disgruntled developers and how Sebastien dealt with them whilst maintaining professionalism, good relationships and encouraging the developers he is reviewing.
Like David White mentioned above, as a manage who has had to to deal with developers who were disgruntled about code reviews, I'd like to have seen more about this. Sebastien covered how they should behave, but the thing I've found most difficult is getting them to understand that.
Great talk, I thoroughly enjoyed this, well presented. This will definitely influence my code reviews in the future and I will be putting more detail into my reviews. Some great tools covered as well which I will be looking into. Very useful!
There was some good content in this talk, but I felt like too much time was spent setting up the "Angry Nerds" characters. I got plenty out of "why" we should code review and a few tidbits on "how" towards the end, but feel like I could have done with some more concrete examples of using software to code review (and what in Sebastian's experience worked best) and "when" they should be done. After each commit? Each day? etc etc.
I got plenty out of this, just not as much as I hoped.
Nicely paced and presented. Good content. It's a fine balance to present to those that do code reviews and would like more in depth information/examples and people new to them and need a good introduction. I think this talk was on the latter line but, for that type of talk, provided a good amount of useful information. I'd recommend this talk to people new to code reviews or people who have started doing them and need some more ideas about making them effective.
A great talk into a part of a developers life that is often overlooked. I was familiar with a couple of the tools, and now have a few more to add to my tool chain. I just hope any devs I work with will appreciate it too.
Another area where I desperately needed some knowledge and Sebastian delivered. Covering some great tools and also tips on how to effectively communicate your projects status with your non-coding managers and the importance of structured review process. The themed slides added a bit of fun the session - despite the disclaimer I'm convinced the Tom character was definitely based on my previous manager of the same name.
The talk focussed too much on the static analysis tools and too little on the benefits of actually having another human being reading through the code.
Sebastian did a good job of covering a big subject in a short time. Good introduction, good characterisations of what not to do, and of course some good examples of best practice. There's obviously a lot to it though, and some book recommendations or website suggestions for further reading would've been appreciated.
Extremely well presented & informative talk, from which I gained a great deal of info about various tools available for tested, as well as sparking ideas for perhaps setting up a peer-code-review group?
Really interesting and informative talk. It has given me a lot of pointers on how to approach my own code as well as interactions with the team. Sonar is a tool that I can definitely see in my future workflow.
A good talk. We already use Phabricator (inspired by Scott MacVicar's talk last year) but this took it to a whole new level. The idea of using tools other than 'php -l' to check your code before pushing it to review is a great concept and one which we are adopting.
Sebastian is a very engaging speaker and he even had a cool 'Angry Nerds' T-shirt.
This was a great talk, very entertaining, and covered many of the things that a lot of us may overlook when conducting code reviews.
I've made notes and will be reviewing the slides in order to distribute a summary to everyone at work!
We're struggling to do code reviews at the moment. I picked up some useful ideas from this talk such as adding VC hooks. I also wasn't aware of some of the tools that help with code review and check for stuff automatically. I'll be checking those out.
I would have preferred it if one of the characters in the scenario was female. I know there aren't a lot of women in IT so the fictitious all-male team presented is common. And sadly there were very few women at the conference. But I think it is good to be inclusive.
Good talk though and hopefully I'll be putting some of the ideas into practice soon.
Comments
Comments are closed.
Great talk, only bad point I would say is that the beginning scenario's were a touch confusing; it took me a little while to get what was going on.. Other than that; it was great!
Very worthwhile talk on code reviews and how to do them correctly — as well as how to spot if you’re not! Touched on the useful tools for the job as well, which are just as important as the human review.
Really entertaining talk, at a good level for me as someone like me who isn't doing code reviews yet.
Excellent talk around a subject that seems to be overlooked in far too many companies. And with just the right amount of light heartedness.
Good pointers to usefull applications, also gave a lot of things to avoid. Entertaining but a bit confusing at first because of the characters.
Felt a bit too high-level. The talk emphasised the need for code review well enough, and mentioned most the core tools for the automated part of a review; but while a lot of reference was made to checking for duplicate code, it never once actually mentioned phpcpd as a tool for identifying duplication.
As an intro for those not doing code reviews already, it would have been a good introduction... for those of us already using those tools on a regular basis, I think it missed that audience.
The most interesting part was the look at sonar, but I felt that this was an all-too brief summary of sonar features. I'd hoped for a more detailed look at sonar for those of us who already do code review on a regular basis, and are already using the other automated tools mentioned.
Great talk, but I would have appreciated more depth on Sonar and a couple of other tools. I was also a little surprised that Facebook's Phabricator wasn't mentioned (as it seems to cover a number of the requirements by itself).
Though I am one of the main reviewers at the company I work for, it was good to pick up a few new things to do and a couple of ideas for new approaches.
Good, interesting talk. I also would have liked a bit more on Sonar - but I imagine that could have been a talk itself.
was great to validate my existing practices. Thanks
A greatly entertaining presentation that provided a good high(ish) level of information regarding the checks that need to be carried out prior to performing a code review (PHPCS, PDepend, PHPCPD etc).
One thing I think would have been good to hear would have been to define some of the parameters around who fulfils what role and why. We all know there are developers with more domain knowledge than us but what makes them right in the first place, especially when it comes to carrying out code reviews?
The subject was well presented with nice slides. The few scenarios were a bit tricky to follow and I think this could be done in a better way. I would also have liked to see, with perhaps just a screenshot, on how you would do code reviews with github and glassfish.
Code Reviews ironically appear to be more about people than code, and Sebastien hinted at this by suggesting that reviewers should not use the word 'You', but instead use 'It'.
Sebastien covered alot of tech tools - which I didn't find useful, as I already use them.
If I could add an suggestions, then I would appreciate hearing about difficult situations that occur in Code Reviews such as disgruntled developers and how Sebastien dealt with them whilst maintaining professionalism, good relationships and encouraging the developers he is reviewing.
Like David White mentioned above, as a manage who has had to to deal with developers who were disgruntled about code reviews, I'd like to have seen more about this. Sebastien covered how they should behave, but the thing I've found most difficult is getting them to understand that.
All in all a good talk.
Great talk, I thoroughly enjoyed this, well presented. This will definitely influence my code reviews in the future and I will be putting more detail into my reviews. Some great tools covered as well which I will be looking into. Very useful!
Good talk.
There was some good content in this talk, but I felt like too much time was spent setting up the "Angry Nerds" characters. I got plenty out of "why" we should code review and a few tidbits on "how" towards the end, but feel like I could have done with some more concrete examples of using software to code review (and what in Sebastian's experience worked best) and "when" they should be done. After each commit? Each day? etc etc.
I got plenty out of this, just not as much as I hoped.
Nicely paced and presented. Good content. It's a fine balance to present to those that do code reviews and would like more in depth information/examples and people new to them and need a good introduction. I think this talk was on the latter line but, for that type of talk, provided a good amount of useful information. I'd recommend this talk to people new to code reviews or people who have started doing them and need some more ideas about making them effective.
Great talk, I loved it. There's not much to say that others haven't said already.
A great talk into a part of a developers life that is often overlooked. I was familiar with a couple of the tools, and now have a few more to add to my tool chain. I just hope any devs I work with will appreciate it too.
Another area where I desperately needed some knowledge and Sebastian delivered. Covering some great tools and also tips on how to effectively communicate your projects status with your non-coding managers and the importance of structured review process. The themed slides added a bit of fun the session - despite the disclaimer I'm convinced the Tom character was definitely based on my previous manager of the same name.
The talk focussed too much on the static analysis tools and too little on the benefits of actually having another human being reading through the code.
Sebastian did a good job of covering a big subject in a short time. Good introduction, good characterisations of what not to do, and of course some good examples of best practice. There's obviously a lot to it though, and some book recommendations or website suggestions for further reading would've been appreciated.
Interesting talk, thanks.
Extremely well presented & informative talk, from which I gained a great deal of info about various tools available for tested, as well as sparking ideas for perhaps setting up a peer-code-review group?
Really interesting and informative talk. It has given me a lot of pointers on how to approach my own code as well as interactions with the team. Sonar is a tool that I can definitely see in my future workflow.
A good talk. We already use Phabricator (inspired by Scott MacVicar's talk last year) but this took it to a whole new level. The idea of using tools other than 'php -l' to check your code before pushing it to review is a great concept and one which we are adopting.
Sebastian is a very engaging speaker and he even had a cool 'Angry Nerds' T-shirt.
This was a great talk, very entertaining, and covered many of the things that a lot of us may overlook when conducting code reviews.
I've made notes and will be reviewing the slides in order to distribute a summary to everyone at work!
We're struggling to do code reviews at the moment. I picked up some useful ideas from this talk such as adding VC hooks. I also wasn't aware of some of the tools that help with code review and check for stuff automatically. I'll be checking those out.
I would have preferred it if one of the characters in the scenario was female. I know there aren't a lot of women in IT so the fictitious all-male team presented is common. And sadly there were very few women at the conference. But I think it is good to be inclusive.
Good talk though and hopefully I'll be putting some of the ideas into practice soon.