For long pull requests, I use a practice that I call "micro/macro reviewing"
Stage 1: Micro reviewing
Find code that doesn't follow best practice (which formatters and linters don't catch). Make direct suggestions using Github web tool
Find good code sections / good tests then publicly thank / praise the author
Stage 2: Macro reviewing
Understand what the issue is about
Read every changed files, ask myself if the change solves the issue or not, how it solves the issue. Write down any questions that I have. For files that I have no questions and be independent from other files, I fold it.
Re-read every unfolded files to find answers for the noted questions. Make a comment for anything that I can't find an answer or things that don't seem right.
Beg for tests for non trivial changes.
Find more good code sections / good tests then publicly thank / praise the author
I hardly run the code myself. Mostly because I'm lazy, but I trust code authors and our test suite.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
For long pull requests, I use a practice that I call "micro/macro reviewing"
Stage 1: Micro reviewing
Stage 2: Macro reviewing
I hardly run the code myself. Mostly because I'm lazy, but I trust code authors and our test suite.