Difference between revisions of "APB-Code review"

From "A B C"
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m (Created page with "<div id="BIO"> <div class="b1"> Code review </div> {{Vspace}} <div class="keywords"> <b>Keywords:</b>  Code review sessions - conduct and expectations </div> {...")
 
m
 
(26 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
−
<div id="BIO">
+
<div id="ABC">
−
  <div class="b1">
+
<div style="padding:5px; border:4px solid #000000; background-color:#e19fa7; font-size:300%; font-weight:400; color: #000000; width:100%;">
−
Code review
+
Code and Design Review
−
  </div>
+
<div style="padding:5px; margin-top:20px; margin-bottom:10px; background-color:#e19fa7; font-size:30%; font-weight:200; color: #000000; ">
 +
(Code review sessions - conduct and expectations)
 +
</div>
 +
</div>
 +
 
 +
{{Smallvspace}}
 +
 
  
−
  {{Vspace}}
+
<div style="padding:5px; border:1px solid #000000; background-color:#e19fa733; font-size:85%;">
−
 
+
<div style="font-size:118%;">
−
<div class="keywords">
+
<b>Abstract:</b><br />
−
<b>Keywords:</b>&nbsp;
+
<section begin=abstract />
−
Code review sessions - conduct and expectations
+
This page explains conduct of and expectations for code and design reviews.
 +
<section end=abstract />
 +
</div>
 +
<!-- ============================  -->
 +
<hr>
 +
<table>
 +
<tr>
 +
<td style="padding:10px;">
 +
<b>Objectives:</b><br />
 +
Code reviews are intended to ...
 +
* ... improve everyone's familarity with the contents;
 +
* ... practice critical analysis of the material;
 +
* ... practice giving constructive feedback in a professional context;
 +
* ... improve communication skills.
 +
</td>
 +
<td style="padding:10px;">
 +
&nbsp;
 +
</td>
 +
</tr>
 +
</table>
 +
<!-- ============================  -->
 +
<hr>
 +
<b>Deliverables:</b><br />
 +
<section begin=deliverables />
 +
Your participation as reviewers in the Code review sessions will be worth 8 marks in each panel for a total of 4 x 8 marks maximum.
 +
<section end=deliverables />
 +
<!-- ============================  -->
 
</div>
 
</div>
  
−
{{Vspace}}
+
{{Smallvspace}}
  
  
−
__TOC__
+
{{SLEEP}}
  
−
{{Vspace}}
+
{{Smallvspace}}
  
  
−
{{DEV}}
+
__TOC__
  
 
{{Vspace}}
 
{{Vspace}}
  
  
−
</div>
+
== Contents ==
−
<div id="ABC-unit-framework">
 
−
== Abstract ==
 
−
<section begin=abstract />
 
−
<!-- included from "../components/APB-Code_review.components.wtxt", section: "abstract" -->
 
−
This page presents conduct and expectations for code reviews.
 
−
<section end=abstract />
 
  
−
{{Vspace}}
+
We call our review sessions "Code reviews" for simplicity, however the purpose is not only to review '''code''', but also the '''design''', '''contents''', and '''form''' of the submitted material.
  
 +
Code reviews are done for course credit '''of the reviewers'''. The units are already going to have been marked by the instructor before the review. Critical reviews are not going to affect that mark, there is no need to hold back on criticism to protect your peers for that reason. The best way to help your peers is to provide a high-quality review, with creative, constructive feedback. A well-prepared, thoughtful, knowledgeable review will be immensely valuable for your peers. And since '''you''' as the reviewer will be evaluated for credit, I hope that you will put your heart into it.
  
−
== This unit ... ==
+
; Principles:
−
=== Prerequisites ===
+
* Units are not to be modified, until after the code review. Do not edit, upload, commit, push, merge or otherwise modify any material you have submitted for credit until after the review is done.
−
<!-- included from "../components/APB-Code_review.components.wtxt", section: "prerequisites" -->
+
* We will use four weeks for reviews. We will schedule five to six reviews per class session, with four reviewers. This will give everyone approximately five minutes for their review contributions.
−
<!-- included from "ABC-unit_components.wtxt", section: "notes-no_prerequisites" -->
+
* Everyone will review four units.
−
This unit has no prerequisites.
+
* Typically everyone will participate in one review at every session, and never more than two.
 +
*
  
 
{{Vspace}}
 
{{Vspace}}
 +
 +
===Schedule===
  
  
−
=== Objectives ===
+
<table>
−
<!-- included from "../components/APB-Code_review.components.wtxt", section: "objectives" -->
+
<tr class="sh"><td>Date</td><td>Title</td><td>Author</td><td>Reviewer 1</td><td>Reviewer 2</td><td>Reviewer 3</td><td>Reviewer 4</td></tr>
−
...
+
<tr class="s1"><td>October 10</td><td>TBD</td><td>'''NN'''</td><td>NN</td><td>NN</td><td>NN</td><td>NN</td></tr>
 +
<tr class="s2"><td>October 10</td><td>TBD</td><td>'''NN'''</td><td>NN</td><td>NN</td><td>NN</td><td>NN</td></tr>
 +
<tr class="s1"><td>October 10</td><td>TBD</td><td>'''NN'''</td><td>NN</td><td>NN</td><td>NN</td><td>NN</td></tr>
 +
<tr class="s2"><td>October 10</td><td>TBD</td><td>'''NN'''</td><td>NN</td><td>NN</td><td>NN</td><td>NN</td></tr>
 +
<tr class="s1"><td>October 10</td><td>TBD</td><td>'''NN'''</td><td>NN</td><td>NN</td><td>NN</td><td>NN</td></tr>
 +
</table>
  
−
{{Vspace}}
 
  
 +
<table>
 +
<tr class="sh"><td>Date</td><td>Title</td><td>Author</td><td>Reviewer 1</td><td>Reviewer 2</td><td>Reviewer 3</td><td>Reviewer 4</td></tr>
 +
<tr class="s1"><td>October 17</td><td>TBD</td><td>'''NN'''</td><td>NN</td><td>NN</td><td>NN</td><td>NN</td></tr>
 +
<tr class="s2"><td>October 17</td><td>TBD</td><td>'''NN'''</td><td>NN</td><td>NN</td><td>NN</td><td>NN</td></tr>
 +
<tr class="s1"><td>October 17</td><td>TBD</td><td>'''NN'''</td><td>NN</td><td>NN</td><td>NN</td><td>NN</td></tr>
 +
<tr class="s2"><td>October 17</td><td>TBD</td><td>'''NN'''</td><td>NN</td><td>NN</td><td>NN</td><td>NN</td></tr>
 +
<tr class="s1"><td>October 17</td><td>TBD</td><td>'''NN'''</td><td>NN</td><td>NN</td><td>NN</td><td>NN</td></tr>
 +
</table>
  
−
=== Outcomes ===
+
<table>
−
<!-- included from "../components/APB-Code_review.components.wtxt", section: "outcomes" -->
+
<tr class="sh"><td>Date</td><td>Title</td><td>Author</td><td>Reviewer 1</td><td>Reviewer 2</td><td>Reviewer 3</td><td>Reviewer 4</td></tr>
−
...
+
<tr class="s1"><td>October 24</td><td>TBD</td><td>'''NN'''</td><td>NN</td><td>NN</td><td>NN</td><td>NN</td></tr>
 +
<tr class="s2"><td>October 24</td><td>TBD</td><td>'''NN'''</td><td>NN</td><td>NN</td><td>NN</td><td>NN</td></tr>
 +
<tr class="s1"><td>October 24</td><td>TBD</td><td>'''NN'''</td><td>NN</td><td>NN</td><td>NN</td><td>NN</td></tr>
 +
<tr class="s2"><td>October 24</td><td>TBD</td><td>'''NN'''</td><td>NN</td><td>NN</td><td>NN</td><td>NN</td></tr>
 +
<tr class="s1"><td>October 24</td><td>TBD</td><td>'''NN'''</td><td>NN</td><td>NN</td><td>NN</td><td>NN</td></tr>
 +
</table>
  
−
{{Vspace}}
+
<table>
 +
<tr class="sh"><td>Date</td><td>Title</td><td>Author</td><td>Reviewer 1</td><td>Reviewer 2</td><td>Reviewer 3</td><td>Reviewer 4</td></tr>
 +
<tr class="s1"><td>October 31</td><td>TBD</td><td>'''NN'''</td><td>NN</td><td>NN</td><td>NN</td><td>NN</td></tr>
 +
<tr class="s2"><td>October 31</td><td>TBD</td><td>'''NN'''</td><td>NN</td><td>NN</td><td>NN</td><td>NN</td></tr>
 +
<tr class="s1"><td>October 31</td><td>TBD</td><td>'''NN'''</td><td>NN</td><td>NN</td><td>NN</td><td>NN</td></tr>
 +
<tr class="s2"><td>October 31</td><td>TBD</td><td>'''NN'''</td><td>NN</td><td>NN</td><td>NN</td><td>NN</td></tr>
 +
<tr class="s1"><td>October 31</td><td>TBD</td><td>'''NN'''</td><td>NN</td><td>NN</td><td>NN</td><td>NN</td></tr>
 +
</table>
  
  
−
=== Deliverables ===
 
−
<!-- included from "../components/APB-Code_review.components.wtxt", section: "deliverables" -->
 
−
<!-- included from "ABC-unit_components.wtxt", section: "deliverables-none" -->
 
−
*<b>No deliverables</b>: This unit has no deliverables.
 
  
 
{{Vspace}}
 
{{Vspace}}
  
 +
===Preparation===
  
−
</div>
+
*The entire class is expected to have familiarized themselves with all submitted package before the first review, to establish context.
−
<div id="BIO">
+
*The entire class is expected to have installed and assessed the packages that are scheduled for review each review session, so that everyone can follow the discussion and contribute.
−
== Contents ==
+
*The designated reviewers of a package have worked through the material in detail, have made themselves knowledgeable about the context and background, and have prepared their review contributions (see below). I expect that reviewers will come to class very well prepared, and that they consider the unit with reference to the expectations set out in the [[http://steipe.biochemistry.utoronto.ca/abc/index.php/ABC-Rubrics|evaluation rubrics for software design, code and documentation]].
−
<!-- included from "../components/APB-Code_review.components.wtxt", section: "contents" -->
 
  
−
In this course we will try "Code Reviews for Credit". This means, we are not going to evaluate the "code" - i.e. the learning units, but the '''reviewers'''. A well-prepared, thoughtful, knowledgeable review will provide immensely valuable feedback, I hope that reviewing for credit will help the reviewers put their heart into it.
+
{{Vspace}}
  
−
===Schedule===
+
===During the review===
  
−
* Units are to be kept in the state that was submitted when they were due, until after the code review.
+
{{Smallvspace}}
−
* We will use four weeks for reviews. We will schedule six reviews per class session, with three to four reviewers. This will give everyone approximately five minutes for questions, proposals and feedback.
 
−
* Everyone will be involved at every class session.
 
  
−
Why the review?
+
Reviews proceed in three rounds: first, the lead reviewers ask their most important prepared questions in turn; second, the reviewers lead a more general round of discussion; finally the discusion is opened to the entire class. Each review will take approximaetley twenty minutes.
  
−
Code '''and''' design review
+
{{Smallvspace}}
  
−
===Preparation===
+
*Code will not be presented by the author (unfortunately we don't have enough time), but the reviewers may ask some initial questions for clarification. Other than that, familiartity with the unit is assumed.
 +
*Reviewers will comment on issues focussing on '''importance, visual appeal and utility''' of the package. Ideally, reviewers will make specific suggestions for improvement but it is better to point out a weakness, even if you don't quite know how to address it, than to remain silent. Once it is pointed out, others may have useful ideas. Of course, if you note particular strengths of the unit, that is also welcome.
 +
* Issues for discussion could include:
 +
** Suggestions to make the objectives of the tool more clear.
 +
** Improvements to integrating the unit with existing packagesothers (but without introducing unnecessary dependencies).
 +
** Constructive critique of software design decisions.
 +
** Improvements to examples to better illustrate the concepts.
 +
** Addressing any unstated assumptions.
 +
** Identifying significant dependencies that could become obstacles to refactoring.
 +
** Flagging, where the material lacks rigour or is factully incorrect.
 +
** Improvements to form and layout.
 +
** Identifying code that does not conform to coding style.
 +
** Identifying code that exemplifies poor practice ("anti-patterns", design smell", "code smell").
 +
** Improvements to comments;
 +
** Improvements to visuals;
 +
** Flagging where the sample code might not be robust against faulty input.
 +
** Flagging where the sample code might not be safe against overwriting user data.
 +
** Any other issues ...
 +
*During the review, reviewers take notes of responses and comments.
  
−
*The entire class is expected to have carefully worked through the learning units that are scheduled for review, so everyone can follow the discussion.
+
{{Smallvspace}}
−
*The reviewers have worked through the unit in detail and lead the discussion.
 
−
*Code will not be presented by the author like in a normal code review, but the reviewers may ask some initial questions for clarification.
 
−
**How does the unit fulfil its own requirements and objectives?
 
−
**How does the unit contribute to the objectives of the course?
 
−
**Is the unit well integrated with others?
 
−
**What design decisions were made? How did they work out?
 
−
**Do the examples illustrate the concepts?
 
−
** Are there unstated assumptions, hidden dependencies, obstacles to refactoring?
 
−
** Is it '''correct'''?
 
−
**Does the form and coding style need improvement?
 
−
**Is the sample code robust against faulty input?
 
−
**Does the example code
 
−
**is the code safe against overwriting data?
 
−
**Are the tasks meaningful? Have sample solutions been provided? Are they commented to the degree that is appropriate for someone who needs o look up the sample solution?
 
  
−
*During the review, reviewers take notes of responses to the issues they raised and their suggestions.
+
Overall, be mindful that code review is a sensitive social issue, and that the primary objective is not to point out errors, but to improve the entire "team".
−
*After the review, on the same day, the reviewers summarize their issues and proposals on the "Talk" page of the unit (point form); once all suggestions are in, the unit author begins the revision. Note: it is not mandatory that the revisions follow the reviewers' suggestions - in the end, the author is responsible for their unit.
 
  
 +
{{Vspace}}
  
−
#Briefly consider improvements to coding style as suggestions but don't spend too much time on them (don't create a "{{WP|Parkinson's_law_of_triviality|Bicycle Shed}}" anti-pattern) - style is not the most important thing about the review. Be constructive and nice - you should encourage your colleagues, not demotivate them.
+
==After the review==
−
#Spend most of the time discussing architecture: how does this code fit into the general lay of the land? How would it need to change if its context changes? Is it sufficiently modular to survive? What does it depend on? What depends on it? Does it apply a particular {{WP|Software_design_pattern|design pattern}}? Should it? Or has it devolved into an {{WP|Anti-pattern|anti-pattern}}?
 
−
#Focus on tests. What is the most dangerous error for the system integrity that the code under review could produce. Are there tests that validate how the code deals with this? Are there tests for the {{WP|Edge_case|edge cases}} and {{WP|Corner_case|corner cases}}<ref>A software engineer walks into a bar and orders a beer. Then he orders 0 beers. Then orders 2147483648 beers. Then he orders a duck. Then orders -1 beers, poured into a bathtub. Then he returns a beer he didn't order. Then he spills his beer on the floor, shrieks wildly and runs away without paying.</ref>? This is the best part about the review: bring everyone in the room on board of the real objectives of the project, by considering how one component contributes to it.
 
−
#Finally, what's your gut feeling about the code: is there {{WP|Code_smell|Code Smell}}? Are there suboptimal design decisions that perhaps don't seem very critical at the moment but that could later turn into inappropriate {{WP|Technical debt|technical debt}}? Perhaps some {{WP|Code_refactoring|refactoring}} is indicated; solving the same problem again often leads to vastly improved strategies.
 
  
−
Overall be mindful that code review is a sensitive social issue, and that the primary objective is not to point out errors, but to improve the entire team.
+
* After the review, '''on the same day''', the reviewers summarize their issues and proposals on the "Talk" page of the package synopsis on the Student Wiki (briefly, in point form);
 +
* Once all suggestions are in, the unit author begins revisions.
 +
* It is not mandatory that the revisions follow the reviewers' suggestions. Authors need to consider comments carefully, but apply their own best judgement. In the end, the reviewers are responsible for their reviews, but the author is responsible for their package.
  
 +
{{Vspace}}
  
 +
==A final note==
  
 +
I hope that in your career you will find yourself in a workplace where peer-review is a regular part of your activities. This may contribute tremendously to better outcomes, more transparent and more meaningful work, and more cohesive teams. When that time comes, your skills as reviewers will be evaluated implicitly, although perhaps neither you, your supervisor, nor your project lead might realize this. You will be prepared.
  
 
{{Vspace}}
 
{{Vspace}}
−
 
  
 
== Further reading, links and resources ==
 
== Further reading, links and resources ==
 +
*{{WP|Anti-pattern|'''Anti-pattern'''}}
 +
*{{WP|Design_smell|'''Design smell'''}}
 +
*{{WP|Code_smell|'''Code smell'''}}
 +
<div class="reference-box">[https://www.planetgeek.ch/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Clean-Code-V2.4.pdf Urs Enzler's "Clean Code Cheatsheet"] (at planetgeek.ch) Oriented towards OO developers, but expresses sound principles that apply by analogy.</div>
 
<!-- Formatting exqmples:
 
<!-- Formatting exqmples:
 
{{#pmid: 19957275}}
 
{{#pmid: 19957275}}
−
<div class="reference-box">[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]</div>
 
 
-->
 
-->
−
 
−
{{Vspace}}
 
−
 
−
 
 
== Notes ==
 
== Notes ==
−
<!-- included from "../components/APB-Code_review.components.wtxt", section: "notes" -->
 
−
<!-- included from "ABC-unit_components.wtxt", section: "notes" -->
 
 
<references />
 
<references />
  
 
{{Vspace}}
 
{{Vspace}}
  
−
 
−
</div>
 
−
<div id="ABC-unit-framework">
 
−
 
−
{{Vspace}}
 
−
 
−
 
−
<!-- included from "ABC-unit_components.wtxt", section: "ABC-unit_ask" -->
 
−
 
−
----
 
−
 
−
{{Vspace}}
 
−
 
−
<b>If in doubt, ask!</b> If anything about this learning unit is not clear to you, do not proceed blindly but ask for clarification. Post your question on the course mailing list: others are likely to have similar problems. Or send an email to your instructor.
 
−
 
−
----
 
−
 
−
{{Vspace}}
 
  
 
<div class="about">
 
<div class="about">
Line 161: Line 193:
 
:2017-10-13
 
:2017-10-13
 
<b>Modified:</b><br />
 
<b>Modified:</b><br />
−
:2017-10-13
+
:2018-09-12
 
<b>Version:</b><br />
 
<b>Version:</b><br />
−
:1.0
+
:1.1
 
<b>Version history:</b><br />
 
<b>Version history:</b><br />
−
*1.0 First final version
+
*1.1 2018 updates
 +
*1.0 New unit
 
</div>
 
</div>
−
[[Category:BCB410-units]]
+
<!-- included from "./data/ABC-unit_components.txt", section: "ABC-unit_footer" -->
−
<!-- included from "ABC-unit_components.wtxt", section: "ABC-unit_footer" -->
 
  
 
{{CC-BY}}
 
{{CC-BY}}
  
 +
[[Category:Applied_Bioinformatics]]
 +
{{INTEGRATOR}}
 +
{{SLEEP}}
 +
{{EVAL}}
 
</div>
 
</div>
 
<!-- [END] -->
 
<!-- [END] -->

Latest revision as of 11:32, 24 September 2020

Code and Design Review

(Code review sessions - conduct and expectations)


 


Abstract:

This page explains conduct of and expectations for code and design reviews.

Objectives:
Code reviews are intended to ...

  • ... improve everyone's familarity with the contents;
  • ... practice critical analysis of the material;
  • ... practice giving constructive feedback in a professional context;
  • ... improve communication skills.

 

Deliverables:

Your participation as reviewers in the Code review sessions will be worth 8 marks in each panel for a total of 4 x 8 marks maximum.


 


This page is not currently being maintained since it is not part of active learning sections.


 



 


Contents

We call our review sessions "Code reviews" for simplicity, however the purpose is not only to review code, but also the design, contents, and form of the submitted material.

Code reviews are done for course credit of the reviewers. The units are already going to have been marked by the instructor before the review. Critical reviews are not going to affect that mark, there is no need to hold back on criticism to protect your peers for that reason. The best way to help your peers is to provide a high-quality review, with creative, constructive feedback. A well-prepared, thoughtful, knowledgeable review will be immensely valuable for your peers. And since you as the reviewer will be evaluated for credit, I hope that you will put your heart into it.

Principles
  • Units are not to be modified, until after the code review. Do not edit, upload, commit, push, merge or otherwise modify any material you have submitted for credit until after the review is done.
  • We will use four weeks for reviews. We will schedule five to six reviews per class session, with four reviewers. This will give everyone approximately five minutes for their review contributions.
  • Everyone will review four units.
  • Typically everyone will participate in one review at every session, and never more than two.


 

Schedule

DateTitleAuthorReviewer 1Reviewer 2Reviewer 3Reviewer 4
October 10TBDNNNNNNNNNN
October 10TBDNNNNNNNNNN
October 10TBDNNNNNNNNNN
October 10TBDNNNNNNNNNN
October 10TBDNNNNNNNNNN


DateTitleAuthorReviewer 1Reviewer 2Reviewer 3Reviewer 4
October 17TBDNNNNNNNNNN
October 17TBDNNNNNNNNNN
October 17TBDNNNNNNNNNN
October 17TBDNNNNNNNNNN
October 17TBDNNNNNNNNNN
DateTitleAuthorReviewer 1Reviewer 2Reviewer 3Reviewer 4
October 24TBDNNNNNNNNNN
October 24TBDNNNNNNNNNN
October 24TBDNNNNNNNNNN
October 24TBDNNNNNNNNNN
October 24TBDNNNNNNNNNN
DateTitleAuthorReviewer 1Reviewer 2Reviewer 3Reviewer 4
October 31TBDNNNNNNNNNN
October 31TBDNNNNNNNNNN
October 31TBDNNNNNNNNNN
October 31TBDNNNNNNNNNN
October 31TBDNNNNNNNNNN



 

Preparation

  • The entire class is expected to have familiarized themselves with all submitted package before the first review, to establish context.
  • The entire class is expected to have installed and assessed the packages that are scheduled for review each review session, so that everyone can follow the discussion and contribute.
  • The designated reviewers of a package have worked through the material in detail, have made themselves knowledgeable about the context and background, and have prepared their review contributions (see below). I expect that reviewers will come to class very well prepared, and that they consider the unit with reference to the expectations set out in the [rubrics for software design, code and documentation].


 

During the review

 

Reviews proceed in three rounds: first, the lead reviewers ask their most important prepared questions in turn; second, the reviewers lead a more general round of discussion; finally the discusion is opened to the entire class. Each review will take approximaetley twenty minutes.


 
  • Code will not be presented by the author (unfortunately we don't have enough time), but the reviewers may ask some initial questions for clarification. Other than that, familiartity with the unit is assumed.
  • Reviewers will comment on issues focussing on importance, visual appeal and utility of the package. Ideally, reviewers will make specific suggestions for improvement but it is better to point out a weakness, even if you don't quite know how to address it, than to remain silent. Once it is pointed out, others may have useful ideas. Of course, if you note particular strengths of the unit, that is also welcome.
  • Issues for discussion could include:
    • Suggestions to make the objectives of the tool more clear.
    • Improvements to integrating the unit with existing packagesothers (but without introducing unnecessary dependencies).
    • Constructive critique of software design decisions.
    • Improvements to examples to better illustrate the concepts.
    • Addressing any unstated assumptions.
    • Identifying significant dependencies that could become obstacles to refactoring.
    • Flagging, where the material lacks rigour or is factully incorrect.
    • Improvements to form and layout.
    • Identifying code that does not conform to coding style.
    • Identifying code that exemplifies poor practice ("anti-patterns", design smell", "code smell").
    • Improvements to comments;
    • Improvements to visuals;
    • Flagging where the sample code might not be robust against faulty input.
    • Flagging where the sample code might not be safe against overwriting user data.
    • Any other issues ...
  • During the review, reviewers take notes of responses and comments.


 

Overall, be mindful that code review is a sensitive social issue, and that the primary objective is not to point out errors, but to improve the entire "team".


 

After the review

  • After the review, on the same day, the reviewers summarize their issues and proposals on the "Talk" page of the package synopsis on the Student Wiki (briefly, in point form);
  • Once all suggestions are in, the unit author begins revisions.
  • It is not mandatory that the revisions follow the reviewers' suggestions. Authors need to consider comments carefully, but apply their own best judgement. In the end, the reviewers are responsible for their reviews, but the author is responsible for their package.


 

A final note

I hope that in your career you will find yourself in a workplace where peer-review is a regular part of your activities. This may contribute tremendously to better outcomes, more transparent and more meaningful work, and more cohesive teams. When that time comes, your skills as reviewers will be evaluated implicitly, although perhaps neither you, your supervisor, nor your project lead might realize this. You will be prepared.


 

Further reading, links and resources

Urs Enzler's "Clean Code Cheatsheet" (at planetgeek.ch) Oriented towards OO developers, but expresses sound principles that apply by analogy.

Notes


 


About ...
 
Author:

Boris Steipe <boris.steipe@utoronto.ca>

Created:

2017-10-13

Modified:

2018-09-12

Version:

1.1

Version history:

  • 1.1 2018 updates
  • 1.0 New unit

CreativeCommonsBy.png This copyrighted material is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Follow the link to learn more.

This page is not currently being maintained since it is not part of active learning sections.
Retrieved from "http://steipe.biochemistry.utoronto.ca/abc/index.php?title=APB-Code_review&oldid=11633"