1
00:00:05,000 --> 00:00:06,000
Hello.

2
00:00:06,000 --> 00:00:09,000
In this lesson we'll learn basics of code review process.

3
00:00:09,000 --> 00:00:14,000
We'll start the lesson from learning the basic principles and goals of code reviews.

4
00:00:14,000 --> 00:00:20,000
I will explain you what different types of code reviews exist and which type is recommended for you

5
00:00:20,000 --> 00:00:22,000
under which circumstances.

6
00:00:23,000 --> 00:00:29,000
Today we'll review in details such fundamentals as rules of code, reviewer and author.

7
00:00:29,000 --> 00:00:34,000
I will also explain you what the reviewer mindset is and how to develop it.

8
00:00:34,000 --> 00:00:38,000
And by the end of the lesson, we'll talk about strategies for efficient code review.

9
00:00:39,000 --> 00:00:40,000
Let's start our lesson.

10
00:00:41,000 --> 00:00:46,000
And as I mentioned in agenda of the lesson, let's start from learning basic principles of code review

11
00:00:46,000 --> 00:00:46,000
process.

12
00:00:47,000 --> 00:00:51,000
On this stage, it is super important to create solid basement for our future learning.

13
00:00:52,000 --> 00:00:54,000
Basic principles are.

14
00:00:54,000 --> 00:00:55,000
Collaboration.

15
00:00:55,000 --> 00:00:56,000
Feedback.

16
00:00:56,000 --> 00:00:57,000
Continuous improvement.

17
00:00:57,000 --> 00:00:58,000
Focus on objectives.

18
00:00:58,000 --> 00:01:00,000
Code standards.

19
00:01:00,000 --> 00:01:01,000
Code ownership.

20
00:01:01,000 --> 00:01:02,000
Automation.

21
00:01:02,000 --> 00:01:03,000
Timeliness.

22
00:01:03,000 --> 00:01:04,000
Documentation.

23
00:01:05,000 --> 00:01:06,000
Let's review them one by one.

24
00:01:07,000 --> 00:01:12,000
Code review involves multiple team members collaborating to review each other's code.

25
00:01:12,000 --> 00:01:17,000
It promotes knowledge sharing and spreads best practices.

26
00:01:17,000 --> 00:01:24,000
Code review encourages discussions about design decisions, code structure, and potential improvements,

27
00:01:24,000 --> 00:01:28,000
leading to better informed decisions and more effective teamwork.

28
00:01:28,000 --> 00:01:33,000
Provide constructive feedback that helps the author improve their code.

29
00:01:33,000 --> 00:01:37,000
Feedback should be specific, actionable, and respectful.

30
00:01:37,000 --> 00:01:43,000
Code review is an iterative process aimed at continuously improving code quality.

31
00:01:43,000 --> 00:01:46,000
It is about learning and growing as a team.

32
00:01:46,000 --> 00:01:52,000
Code review encourages developers to reflect on their coding practices and seek opportunities for optimization

33
00:01:52,000 --> 00:01:54,000
and refinement.

34
00:01:54,000 --> 00:02:01,000
Reviewers should focus on the objectives of the code change, such as solving a particular problem or

35
00:02:01,000 --> 00:02:06,000
implementing a new feature, rather than nitpicking on tribal issues.

36
00:02:06,000 --> 00:02:14,000
This is important ensures that code adheres to the team's coding standards, style guidelines, and

37
00:02:14,000 --> 00:02:15,000
best practices.

38
00:02:15,000 --> 00:02:19,000
Consistency is crucial for maintainability and readability.

39
00:02:19,000 --> 00:02:26,000
Respect the authors ownership of their code while also promoting collective code ownership.

40
00:02:27,000 --> 00:02:32,000
Encourage authors to take responsibility for their code and address feedback accordingly.

41
00:02:32,000 --> 00:02:40,000
Use automated tools such as linters and static code analysis tools to catch common issues and enforce

42
00:02:40,000 --> 00:02:41,000
coding standards.

43
00:02:41,000 --> 00:02:46,000
This helps streamline the review process and ensures consistency.

44
00:02:47,000 --> 00:02:52,000
Conduct code reviews in a timely manner to avoid delays in the development process.

45
00:02:52,000 --> 00:02:59,000
Set clear expectations for review turnaround times, and prioritize critical changes.

46
00:02:59,000 --> 00:03:06,000
Document decisions made during the review process, especially regarding design choices, architectural

47
00:03:06,000 --> 00:03:08,000
decisions, and lessons learned.

48
00:03:09,000 --> 00:03:15,000
This helps maintain a record of discussions and facilitates onboarding of new team members.

49
00:03:15,000 --> 00:03:18,000
The basic principles of code review process.

50
00:03:19,000 --> 00:03:20,000
Let's review now.

51
00:03:20,000 --> 00:03:22,000
Goals of code review process.

52
00:03:23,000 --> 00:03:27,000
There are following goals of code review process quality assurance.

53
00:03:27,000 --> 00:03:35,000
Knowledge sharing, consistency, risk reduction, code ownership, onboarding and mentoring.

54
00:03:35,000 --> 00:03:38,000
Let me explain you each of these.

55
00:03:38,000 --> 00:03:45,000
Ensure the quality of the code base by identifying and fixing defects, bugs, and potential issues

56
00:03:45,000 --> 00:03:48,000
before you find them in production.

57
00:03:48,000 --> 00:03:56,000
Code review helps in maintaining a high level of code quality, which ultimately leads to better software

58
00:03:56,000 --> 00:03:58,000
reliability and user satisfaction.

59
00:03:59,000 --> 00:04:05,000
Facilitate knowledge sharing among team members by providing an opportunity for developers to learn

60
00:04:05,000 --> 00:04:07,000
from each other through code review.

61
00:04:07,000 --> 00:04:14,000
Team members can gain insights into different coding styles, techniques, and approaches, thus improving

62
00:04:14,000 --> 00:04:18,000
their own skills and understanding of the code base.

63
00:04:19,000 --> 00:04:26,000
Enforce coding standards, best practices, and design patterns across the code base by reviewing code

64
00:04:26,000 --> 00:04:27,000
changes.

65
00:04:27,000 --> 00:04:33,000
Teams can ensure consistency in coding style architecture and implementation, making the code base

66
00:04:33,000 --> 00:04:37,000
more maintainable and easier to understand for everyone.

67
00:04:38,000 --> 00:04:45,000
Mitigate the risk of introducing defects and vulnerabilities into the code base by having multiple sets

68
00:04:45,000 --> 00:04:45,000
of eyes.

69
00:04:45,000 --> 00:04:47,000
Reviewing code changes.

70
00:04:47,000 --> 00:04:53,000
Teams can catch potential issues early in the development process, reducing the likelihood of costly

71
00:04:53,000 --> 00:04:55,000
bugs slipping into the production.

72
00:04:56,000 --> 00:05:03,000
Foster a sense of ownership and accountability among team members by participating in code review.

73
00:05:03,000 --> 00:05:10,000
Developers take responsibility for the quality and integrity of their code, leading to a more empowered

74
00:05:10,000 --> 00:05:11,000
and motivated team.

75
00:05:12,000 --> 00:05:18,000
Facilitate the onboarding process for new team members by exposing them to the code base and development

76
00:05:18,000 --> 00:05:20,000
practices through code review.

77
00:05:21,000 --> 00:05:27,000
Additionally, Code Review serves as a platform for more experienced developers to mentor junior members,

78
00:05:27,000 --> 00:05:30,000
helping them grow and develop their skills.

79
00:05:30,000 --> 00:05:37,000
Overall, the primary goals of the code review process are to improve code quality, foster collaboration

80
00:05:37,000 --> 00:05:42,000
and learning, mitigate risks, and ultimately deliver better software products to users.

81
00:05:43,000 --> 00:05:47,000
And now let's review different types of code reviews.

82
00:05:47,000 --> 00:05:53,000
There are several types of code reviews, each with its own characteristics and objectives.

83
00:05:53,000 --> 00:05:55,000
Here are some common types.

84
00:05:56,000 --> 00:05:57,000
Pair programming.

85
00:05:57,000 --> 00:05:59,000
In pair programming.

86
00:05:59,000 --> 00:06:01,000
Two developers work together at the same workstation.

87
00:06:01,000 --> 00:06:09,000
They collaboratively write and review code in real time, discussing design decisions and implementation

88
00:06:09,000 --> 00:06:10,000
details as they go.

89
00:06:11,000 --> 00:06:16,000
Pair programming fosters close collaboration and immediate feedback, leading to higher code quality

90
00:06:16,000 --> 00:06:18,000
and knowledge sharing.

91
00:06:18,000 --> 00:06:21,000
I used to work using pair programming technique.

92
00:06:22,000 --> 00:06:31,000
My personal feedback is this is simply amazing, but sometimes better quality is not instantly visible,

93
00:06:31,000 --> 00:06:38,000
and sometimes it is challenging to explain business stakeholders why two people are working on the same

94
00:06:38,000 --> 00:06:38,000
task.

95
00:06:39,000 --> 00:06:43,000
Because usually business stakeholders think in a straightforward way.

96
00:06:43,000 --> 00:06:49,000
If there are two developers, they can produce twice as much code, so no sense for them to work in

97
00:06:49,000 --> 00:06:50,000
pairs.

98
00:06:50,000 --> 00:06:53,000
So, you know pros and cons.

99
00:06:53,000 --> 00:06:59,000
And it is only matter of your decision now and how you will explain this to business stakeholders.

100
00:07:00,000 --> 00:07:05,000
If you would have any questions, please do not hesitate to post your questions below the video and

101
00:07:05,000 --> 00:07:07,000
I will be happy to answer.

102
00:07:07,000 --> 00:07:11,000
Another type of code review is ad hoc reviews.

103
00:07:12,000 --> 00:07:18,000
AD hoc reviews are informal and spontaneous code reviews that occur on an as needed basis.

104
00:07:18,000 --> 00:07:24,000
Developers may request feedback from their colleagues or spontaneously review each other's code without

105
00:07:24,000 --> 00:07:26,000
following a structured process.

106
00:07:27,000 --> 00:07:33,000
While less formal, ad hoc reviews can still provide valuable insights and help identify issues early

107
00:07:33,000 --> 00:07:34,000
in the development process.

108
00:07:35,000 --> 00:07:37,000
Over the shoulder reviews.

109
00:07:38,000 --> 00:07:43,000
Over the shoulder reviews involve one developer physically sitting with another and reviewing their

110
00:07:43,000 --> 00:07:44,000
code.

111
00:07:44,000 --> 00:07:50,000
The reviewer provides feedback and suggestions in real time as they examine the code together.

112
00:07:51,000 --> 00:07:56,000
Over the shoulder reviews are beneficial for immediate feedback and knowledge transfer, but may not

113
00:07:56,000 --> 00:07:59,000
be practical for remote or distributed teams.

114
00:08:00,000 --> 00:08:02,000
Tool assisted reviews.

115
00:08:03,000 --> 00:08:09,000
Tool assisted reviews utilize specialized code review tools or platforms to facilitate the review process.

116
00:08:10,000 --> 00:08:18,000
These tools offer features such as code diffing to highlight all differences instantly, inline commenting,

117
00:08:18,000 --> 00:08:25,000
issue tracking, and workflow management to streamline the review process and enhance collaboration.

118
00:08:25,000 --> 00:08:31,000
Example of code review tools include GitHub, GitLab, Bitbucket, and others.

119
00:08:32,000 --> 00:08:34,000
Formal inspections.

120
00:08:34,000 --> 00:08:43,000
Formal inspections, also known as peer reviews or walkthroughs, are structured and thorough code review

121
00:08:43,000 --> 00:08:48,000
processes conducted according to predefined guidelines and checklists.

122
00:08:48,000 --> 00:08:55,000
Participants typically include developers, testers, and other stakeholders who systematically examine

123
00:08:55,000 --> 00:09:00,000
the code for defects, compliance with standards, and adherence to requirements.

124
00:09:01,000 --> 00:09:08,000
Formal inspections are more time consuming, but can be highly effective for identifying complex issues

125
00:09:08,000 --> 00:09:11,000
and ensuring high quality code.

126
00:09:12,000 --> 00:09:13,000
Synchronous code review.

127
00:09:13,000 --> 00:09:21,000
In this type, the coder produces the code independently and then reviews it immediately, with the

128
00:09:21,000 --> 00:09:24,000
reviewer discussing and improving the code together.

129
00:09:24,000 --> 00:09:30,000
It is useful when the reviewer lacks knowledge about the task goals or when extensive code improvements

130
00:09:30,000 --> 00:09:31,000
are expected.

131
00:09:32,000 --> 00:09:34,000
Asynchronous code review.

132
00:09:34,000 --> 00:09:39,000
Here, the coder completes the code and makes it available for review.

133
00:09:39,000 --> 00:09:47,000
The reviewer then reviews the code at their own pace, providing commands and suggestions asynchronously.

134
00:09:47,000 --> 00:09:54,000
This type is beneficial when there is no direct dependency between the code and the reviewer, and allows

135
00:09:54,000 --> 00:09:56,000
for flexibility in scheduling.

136
00:09:56,000 --> 00:10:01,000
Asynchronous code review can be done with assistance of different tools for code review.

137
00:10:03,000 --> 00:10:03,000
Code review.

138
00:10:03,000 --> 00:10:10,000
Once in a while, this method involves periodic code review sessions conducted by the entire team,

139
00:10:10,000 --> 00:10:17,000
where one developer presents a piece of code they have been working on, and the team collectively reviews

140
00:10:17,000 --> 00:10:18,000
and discusses it.

141
00:10:19,000 --> 00:10:24,000
While not a permanent option, it can be useful for teams new to code reviews.

142
00:10:25,000 --> 00:10:31,000
Each type of code review has its own strengths and weaknesses, and the choice of which to use depends

143
00:10:31,000 --> 00:10:38,000
on factors such as team size, project complexity, development methodology, and organizational culture.

144
00:10:38,000 --> 00:10:44,000
Combining different types of code, reviews can provide a comprehensive approach to code quality assurance

145
00:10:44,000 --> 00:10:47,000
and collaboration within software development teams.

146
00:10:47,000 --> 00:10:53,000
When selecting the type of code review to use, several factors should be considered to ensure that

147
00:10:53,000 --> 00:10:58,000
it aligns the team's goals, workflow, and project requirements.

148
00:10:58,000 --> 00:11:02,000
So, how to select the type of code reviews that will suit your team's best?

149
00:11:03,000 --> 00:11:08,000
Let me provide you with a more detailed explanation of when to choose each type.

150
00:11:08,000 --> 00:11:10,000
Asynchronous code reviews.

151
00:11:10,000 --> 00:11:16,000
Asynchronous code reviews are suitable as a default option for professional development teams due to

152
00:11:16,000 --> 00:11:18,000
their flexibility and efficiency.

153
00:11:19,000 --> 00:11:25,000
They allow developers to review code at their own pace without being tied to synchronous collaboration.

154
00:11:26,000 --> 00:11:32,000
Asynchronous reviews prevent the need for force context switching, where developers are interrupted

155
00:11:32,000 --> 00:11:35,000
from their current tasks to participate in a review session.

156
00:11:36,000 --> 00:11:39,000
This helps maintain focus and productivity.

157
00:11:40,000 --> 00:11:46,000
Asynchronous reviews are effective for most common use cases, where developers can review code independently

158
00:11:46,000 --> 00:11:48,000
and provide feedback asynchronously.

159
00:11:48,000 --> 00:11:54,000
This type is ideal for teams with diverse schedules and distributed members.

160
00:11:54,000 --> 00:12:00,000
Synchronous code reviews are appropriate when the reviewer lacks understanding of the changes made by

161
00:12:00,000 --> 00:12:01,000
the coder.

162
00:12:01,000 --> 00:12:08,000
In such cases, immediate collaboration and explanation can help clarify the code and ensure that feedback

163
00:12:08,000 --> 00:12:10,000
is relevant and accurate.

164
00:12:10,000 --> 00:12:17,000
If extensive code improvements are expected due to the coders lack of experience or familiarity with

165
00:12:17,000 --> 00:12:18,000
the task.

166
00:12:18,000 --> 00:12:22,000
Synchronous reviews allow for real time discussion and iteration on the code.

167
00:12:23,000 --> 00:12:28,000
This can accelerate the review process and ensures that improvements are made efficiently.

168
00:12:29,000 --> 00:12:37,000
Pair programming or instant code review is beneficial when solving complex business problems that require

169
00:12:37,000 --> 00:12:40,000
close collaboration and immediate feedback to developers.

170
00:12:40,000 --> 00:12:47,000
Working together can brainstorm solutions, discuss edge cases, and ensure that all scenarios are properly

171
00:12:47,000 --> 00:12:48,000
handled in the code.

172
00:12:49,000 --> 00:12:55,000
Pair programming works best when both developers have similar levels of expertise, allowing them to

173
00:12:55,000 --> 00:13:00,000
work at a consistent pace and effectively collaborate on problem solving.

174
00:13:00,000 --> 00:13:07,000
It fosters mutual learning and motivation, leading to higher productivity and code quality.

175
00:13:08,000 --> 00:13:14,000
So asynchronous code reviews are the recommended default option for professional development teams due

176
00:13:14,000 --> 00:13:17,000
to their flexibility and efficiency.

177
00:13:17,000 --> 00:13:19,000
Synchronous reviews are.

178
00:13:19,000 --> 00:13:24,000
Pair programming can be utilized when necessary, such as when immediate collaboration is required,

179
00:13:24,000 --> 00:13:27,000
or for solving complex business problems.

180
00:13:27,000 --> 00:13:33,000
Ultimately, the choice of code review type should be based on the specific needs and circumstances

181
00:13:33,000 --> 00:13:35,000
of the team and the project.

182
00:13:36,000 --> 00:13:42,000
Understanding the roles of both the code reviewer and the code author is crucial for an effective code

183
00:13:42,000 --> 00:13:43,000
review process.

184
00:13:43,000 --> 00:13:46,000
Here is an explanation of each role.

185
00:13:47,000 --> 00:13:48,000
Code reviewer.

186
00:13:48,000 --> 00:13:54,000
The code reviewer is responsible for evaluating the code changes submitted by the author.

187
00:13:54,000 --> 00:14:02,000
This involves examining the code for errors, bugs, readability issues, and adherence to coding standards.

188
00:14:02,000 --> 00:14:08,000
The reviewer provides constructive feedback to the author based on their evaluation of the code.

189
00:14:08,000 --> 00:14:14,000
Feedback should be specific, actionable, and respectful, aimed at helping the author improve the

190
00:14:14,000 --> 00:14:15,000
quality of their code.

191
00:14:16,000 --> 00:14:21,000
Reviewers often share their expertise and knowledge with the author during the review process.

192
00:14:22,000 --> 00:14:28,000
They may suggest alternative solutions, best practices, or improvements based on their experience

193
00:14:28,000 --> 00:14:30,000
and understanding of the code base.

194
00:14:30,000 --> 00:14:37,000
In some cases, the reviewer acts as a gatekeeper insurance that only high quality code is merged into

195
00:14:37,000 --> 00:14:38,000
the code base.

196
00:14:38,000 --> 00:14:45,000
They may reject code changes that do not meet the required standards, or pose risks to the stability

197
00:14:45,000 --> 00:14:47,000
and integrity of the software.

198
00:14:47,000 --> 00:14:53,000
Reviewers collaborate with the author to discuss and address issues identified during the review.

199
00:14:53,000 --> 00:14:59,000
This collaboration fosters communication, teamwork, and collective ownership of the code base.

200
00:14:59,000 --> 00:15:03,000
Let's now talk about code author role.

201
00:15:03,000 --> 00:15:08,000
The code author is a developer who wrote the code changes being reviewed.

202
00:15:09,000 --> 00:15:14,000
They are responsible for implementing the requested feature, fixing bugs, or making improvements to

203
00:15:14,000 --> 00:15:15,000
the code base.

204
00:15:16,000 --> 00:15:21,000
The author presents the code changes to the reviewer for evaluation and feedback.

205
00:15:21,000 --> 00:15:28,000
They may provide context, explanations, or documentation to help the reviewer understand the purpose

206
00:15:28,000 --> 00:15:30,000
and intent of the changes.

207
00:15:31,000 --> 00:15:37,000
Authors receive feedback from the reviewer and are expected to consider it seriously.

208
00:15:37,000 --> 00:15:43,000
They should be open to constructive criticism and willing to make necessary revisions to improve the

209
00:15:43,000 --> 00:15:45,000
quality of their code.

210
00:15:46,000 --> 00:15:50,000
Authors use code reviews as an opportunity to learn and grow.

211
00:15:50,000 --> 00:15:57,000
As developers, they gain insights into the best practices, coding standards, and areas for improvement

212
00:15:57,000 --> 00:15:59,000
through feedback provided by reviewers.

213
00:16:00,000 --> 00:16:07,000
Ultimately, the author is responsible for addressing issues identified during the review and ensuring

214
00:16:07,000 --> 00:16:11,000
that their code meets the required standards and quality criteria.

215
00:16:11,000 --> 00:16:18,000
They may need to make revisions, clarify requirements, or seek assistance from other team members

216
00:16:18,000 --> 00:16:19,000
as needed.

217
00:16:19,000 --> 00:16:23,000
Let's now talk about development of a reviewer mindset.

218
00:16:24,000 --> 00:16:29,000
Developing a reviewer mindset is essential for conducting effective code reviews.

219
00:16:29,000 --> 00:16:34,000
Let's review some key aspects to consider when growing this mindset.

220
00:16:34,000 --> 00:16:38,000
Pay close attention to the details of the code being reviewed.

221
00:16:38,000 --> 00:16:45,000
Look for syntax errors, logic flaws, performance issues, and adherence to coding standards.

222
00:16:46,000 --> 00:16:52,000
A keen eye for detail helps ensure that no potential issues go unnoticed.

223
00:16:53,000 --> 00:16:56,000
Approach the review process with a critical mindset.

224
00:16:56,000 --> 00:17:02,000
Question assumptions, challenge design decisions, and look for alternative solutions.

225
00:17:03,000 --> 00:17:10,000
Critical thinking helps identify weaknesses in the code and suggests improvements that enhance its quality

226
00:17:10,000 --> 00:17:11,000
and robustness.

227
00:17:12,000 --> 00:17:17,000
Put yourself in the shoes of the code author and consider their perspective.

228
00:17:18,000 --> 00:17:25,000
Understand the challenges they faced, the constraints they worked under, and the reasons behind their

229
00:17:25,000 --> 00:17:26,000
decisions.

230
00:17:26,000 --> 00:17:32,000
Empathy fosters constructive feedback and promotes a supportive and collaborative review environment.

231
00:17:33,000 --> 00:17:36,000
Effectively communicate your feedback to the code author.

232
00:17:36,000 --> 00:17:43,000
Clearly articulate your thoughts, suggestions, and concerns in a respectful and professional manner.

233
00:17:43,000 --> 00:17:45,000
Use descriptive language.

234
00:17:45,000 --> 00:17:51,000
Provide examples, and offer explanations to ensure that your feedback is understood and actionable.

235
00:17:52,000 --> 00:17:58,000
Be open to different ideas, approaches and solutions presented in the code being reviewed.

236
00:17:58,000 --> 00:18:03,000
Avoid being overly attached to your own preferences or biases.

237
00:18:04,000 --> 00:18:11,000
Embrace diversity of thought and welcome feedback from others, even if it challenges your own perspective.

238
00:18:12,000 --> 00:18:17,000
Approach each code review as an opportunity to learn and grow as a developer.

239
00:18:17,000 --> 00:18:23,000
Stay curious, ask questions, and seek to expand your knowledge and understanding of different programming

240
00:18:23,000 --> 00:18:26,000
languages, frameworks, and design patterns.

241
00:18:27,000 --> 00:18:32,000
Embrace feedback from others as a means of personal and professional development.

242
00:18:32,000 --> 00:18:36,000
Advocate for code quality and best practices within the team.

243
00:18:37,000 --> 00:18:39,000
Encourage adherence to coding standards.

244
00:18:39,000 --> 00:18:44,000
Consistency in coding style and adoption of software engineering principles.

245
00:18:45,000 --> 00:18:51,000
Support initiatives that promote code quality such as code refactoring, automated testing, and code

246
00:18:51,000 --> 00:18:52,000
reviews.

247
00:18:52,000 --> 00:18:57,000
Be patient and respectful towards the code author during the review process.

248
00:18:57,000 --> 00:19:04,000
Recognize that everyone makes mistakes and that code reviews are meant to improve, not criticize.

249
00:19:05,000 --> 00:19:11,000
Offer feedback in a constructive and supportive manner, focusing on the code rather than the individual.

250
00:19:11,000 --> 00:19:18,000
By embracing these principles and adopting a reviewer mindset, you can become an effective code reviewer

251
00:19:18,000 --> 00:19:23,000
who contributes to the overall quality and success of the software development process.

252
00:19:23,000 --> 00:19:29,000
And now it is time to review code review strategies in order to make a code review process even more

253
00:19:29,000 --> 00:19:30,000
efficient.

254
00:19:31,000 --> 00:19:37,000
Efficient code review requires careful planning, effective communication, and streamlined processes.

255
00:19:37,000 --> 00:19:42,000
Let's review some strategies to conduct efficient code reviews.

256
00:19:42,000 --> 00:19:46,000
Define the goals and expectations of the code review process up front.

257
00:19:47,000 --> 00:19:54,000
Clarify what aspects of the code need to be reviewed, such as functionality, readability, performance,

258
00:19:54,000 --> 00:19:55,000
and adherence to coding standards.

259
00:19:56,000 --> 00:20:03,000
Develop and communicate clear guidelines for code reviews, including criteria for evaluating code quality,

260
00:20:03,000 --> 00:20:09,000
standards for coding style and formatting, and expectations for reviewer and author behavior.

261
00:20:10,000 --> 00:20:14,000
Consistent guidelines help ensure that reviews are focused and productive.

262
00:20:15,000 --> 00:20:20,000
Take advantage of automated tools and utilities to streamline the review process.

263
00:20:20,000 --> 00:20:27,000
Use code Linters, static analyzers and continuous integration systems to catch common issues and provide

264
00:20:27,000 --> 00:20:28,000
feedback automatically.

265
00:20:29,000 --> 00:20:35,000
This reduces the manual effort required for review and ensures consistency in code quality.

266
00:20:35,000 --> 00:20:42,000
Break down large code changes into smaller, manageable chunks that can be reviewed independently.

267
00:20:42,000 --> 00:20:49,000
This makes it easier for reviewers to focus on specific aspects of the code and provides more granular

268
00:20:49,000 --> 00:20:50,000
feedback.

269
00:20:50,000 --> 00:20:56,000
It also reduces the risk of overwhelming reviewers with too much information at once.

270
00:20:57,000 --> 00:21:04,000
Prioritize code reviews based on factors such as impact of the change, the urgency of the task, and

271
00:21:04,000 --> 00:21:06,000
the expertise of the reviewers.

272
00:21:07,000 --> 00:21:13,000
Focus on reviewing critical or high risk changes first to minimize the potential for bugs and issues

273
00:21:13,000 --> 00:21:14,000
to slip through.

274
00:21:15,000 --> 00:21:20,000
Set limits on the size and scope of code changes to be reviewed in each session.

275
00:21:20,000 --> 00:21:27,000
Aim for reviews that can be completed within a reasonable amount of time, such as 30 minutes to an

276
00:21:27,000 --> 00:21:27,000
hour.

277
00:21:28,000 --> 00:21:33,000
This helps maintain focus and prevents fatigue and burnout among reviewers.

278
00:21:34,000 --> 00:21:39,000
Encourage developers to perform self reviews of their code before submitting it for review.

279
00:21:40,000 --> 00:21:46,000
This allows authors to catch and address common issues and mistakes on their own, reducing the burden

280
00:21:46,000 --> 00:21:50,000
on reviewers and accelerating the review process.

281
00:21:51,000 --> 00:21:54,000
Provide timely feedback to authors during the review process.

282
00:21:54,000 --> 00:22:01,000
Avoid unnecessary delays in reviewing code changes, as this can lead to bottlenecks and prolong the

283
00:22:01,000 --> 00:22:02,000
development cycle.

284
00:22:02,000 --> 00:22:07,000
Aim to review code changes promptly and provide feedback within a reasonable time frame.

285
00:22:08,000 --> 00:22:15,000
Foster a collaborative environment where reviewers and authors can discuss code changes openly and constructively.

286
00:22:16,000 --> 00:22:22,000
Encourage open communication, active participation, and mutual respect among team members.

287
00:22:22,000 --> 00:22:28,000
Collaboration leads to better understanding, alignment, and ultimately higher quality code.

288
00:22:28,000 --> 00:22:34,000
Continuously validate and refine the code review process based on feedback and lessons learned.

289
00:22:35,000 --> 00:22:42,000
Ask for an input from team members on ways to improve efficiency, effectiveness, and overall satisfaction

290
00:22:42,000 --> 00:22:43,000
with the review process.

291
00:22:44,000 --> 00:22:50,000
Adapt and iterate on your strategies to ensure that code reviews remain valuable and productive over

292
00:22:50,000 --> 00:22:50,000
time.

293
00:22:51,000 --> 00:22:57,000
By implementing these strategies, teams can conduct efficient and effective code reviews that improve

294
00:22:57,000 --> 00:23:02,000
code quality, promote knowledge sharing, and foster collaboration within the development team.

295
00:23:03,000 --> 00:23:04,000
That's all.

296
00:23:04,000 --> 00:23:06,000
What I wanted to share with you today.

297
00:23:06,000 --> 00:23:09,000
Let's recap what we have learned in the lesson.

298
00:23:09,000 --> 00:23:11,000
In this lesson, we have learned a lot.

299
00:23:12,000 --> 00:23:15,000
We learned basic principles and goals of code review.

300
00:23:15,000 --> 00:23:22,000
I explained you different types of code review, and I explained what types of code review are applicable

301
00:23:22,000 --> 00:23:23,000
in which case.

302
00:23:23,000 --> 00:23:26,000
We learned role of code reviewer and author.

303
00:23:26,000 --> 00:23:31,000
I shared with you guidelines that will help you to develop reviewer mindset.

304
00:23:31,000 --> 00:23:36,000
And at the end of the lesson we learned strategies for efficient code review.

305
00:23:36,000 --> 00:23:42,000
And just to remind you that in case you have any questions, please do not hesitate to post your questions

306
00:23:42,000 --> 00:23:45,000
below the video and I will be happy to answer.

307
00:23:45,000 --> 00:23:47,000
That's it for this lesson.

308
00:23:47,000 --> 00:23:49,000
Thanks a lot for your attention.

309
00:23:49,000 --> 00:23:52,000
Have a great day and see you in the next lesson.