Comment by agentultra

Comment by agentultra 5 days ago

This is a huge pet peeve for me.

You’d kill your teams velocity if you did this for every PR.

I worked on a team once with… Perfectionist Petra. Petra would jump on an 1200 line refactor that was blocking the team and demand changes that would require it to be rewritten. Not changes that would save the code base from grievous error: Petra didn’t like the pattern used or didn’t approve of the design.

Sufficient tests? Check. Linted and formatted? Check. Does Petra approve? Big variable. I often wanted to tell Petra if they could just write the code out for me in a ticket so I could copy it for them. Instead I had to try and read Petra’s mind or hope they wouldn’t jump on my PR.

Sometimes you have to trust your teammate and not let the perfect plan interfere with a good enough one.

greenthrow 5 days ago

I'm not advocating for constant nitpicking or demanding perfection. But somewhere between that and "PRs are too late for changes" is where most good teams operate.

Reply View 3 replies

agentultra 5 days ago

I realize my comment was emotionally charged.
The point was that I'm a planner. I tend to discuss designs long before I begin writing code. By the time I get to a PR I don't expect to get feedback about the design. I'm looking for someone to check that the code is acceptable to merge. If you have problems with the design, it is too late!
However I work with folks who are not planners. They will write a PR as a proposal. Their expectation is that they may need to iterate on the code a bit based on that feedback; even the design and approach itself is up for review. If you have problems with the design, it's fine!
What has worked well for me in those situations in the past is to be up-front about what kind of feedback you're seeking. Mention in the PR description that you're looking for design crit, code review, etc. Whatever lingo works for your team.
Update: Realizing at the last minute that the design itself is wrong, and saying so, is a good thing -- and I do appreciate that. However it should be rare. My pet peeve is more with the folks who nitpick... whose design contributions are superficial and concerned with style more than substance.

Reply View | 2 replies
- greenthrow 5 days ago
  
  I don't disagree some people have bad, overly nitpicky PR habits and they should be trained out of that.
  That said, sitting down before hand and planning is useful for the big picture but one of the big benefits of PRs, as I explained earlier, is to eliminate lots of wasted time going back and forth in meetings about how to implement something and instead empowering engineers to go write code and then to iterate on actual implementations instead of endlessly discussing ahead of time. So there is a balance there where you make sure everyone is aligned on what you're building but also being open to suggestions on your PRs. Sometimes that may mean rewriting large chunks in exchange for drastically reducing pre-coding discussions.
  
  Reply View | 1 reply
  
  agentultra 5 days ago
  
  I agree that balance is necessary and nitpickers should be steered away from that behaviour.
  I think I'm more concerned with nitpickers which show up in different flavours.
  I understand a functional requirement to rewrite a piece of code in a PR. Perhaps you spent the last 8 hours coding up a solution that passes all of the tests but if you use that data structure at scale it wouldn't perform acceptably. That's a rewrite and that sucks but it will be for the better.
  
  Reply View | 0 replies