🔎 Self-reflection is a common trait among developers. We often find ourselves in a state of denial when it comes to reviewing our own code, believi...
Some comments have been hidden by the post's author - find out more
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
So true !!
I remember when me fellow mate's find bugs that can break things in Production during code review process and while I review i am in denial state that i can't be wrong !!
It's by default feature of every developer that they can't accept at some stage it's not because of my code or I perfectly write code.
Another thing to consider is that there are times when a developer, particularly one new to a team, can expend as much mental energy trying to second-guess the pecadiloes and preferences of team members as actually figuring out the pathways the code will be subjected to in the live environment. Now, this isn't so much of an issue when everyone is genuinely pulling in the same direction, but there are myriad reasons that in the political hotbed that is many modern development environments the line of best fit on comment and improvement may be branches of trees that converge more rarely than one might think. Does depend on the place that tho of course.
@someofthethings
I think ,In some contexts, especially for beginners, developers can expend a lot of mental effort attempting to predict the preferences and quirks of their team members. This may cause people to lose attention and hinder their ability to comprehend code routes in real-world settings. While this might not be an issue in well-functioning teams, it might be more difficult in situations with a high political stakes or if there are competing interests. The specific circumstances will determine how to handle this scenario, however the following ideas are general ones:
Applying these recommendations can improve team harmony and foster more productive development environments by reducing the negative effects of team dynamics.
Can code review not also be a site of posturing, blocking of potential rivals, obsession with trivia, dogma, enforcing of existing patterns at the expense of improvement (in its negative: enforcing the untested new hotness), positioning for authority and even introducing bugs and issues that didn't previously exist with rewrites that didn't need to happen?
In other circumstances, code review might also encourage the use of experimental or trendy techniques without taking into account the consequences. This might result in the introduction of previously unknown flaws or issues, as well as unneeded code rewrites, diverting resources away from more productive initiatives. It is critical for code reviewers to strike a balance between accepting new ideas and assuring the codebase's dependability and maintainability.