What to watch out for during code review?
What to watch out for during code review?
A code review checklist is a crucial element of the development process, and it should be conducted often. They help you build tools that are sturdy and maintainable, which is essential. In addition to increasing project visibility, code review guidelines facilitate knowledge sharing among team members, and most critically, they discover errors and improve maintainability.
Developers need to get the most out of a code review process to get honest and helpful criticism. Comments concerning style, line spacing, and naming should not be the exclusive focus of feedback.
Here are 10 things you should know to look for in every code review.
Functionality
Has the code accomplished what the creator had planned? The first task of the code reviewer is to ensure that the objectives that have been outlined in the code review process are satisfied. Have the alterations dealt with everything on the bug-fixing or feature list? So far as we know, functionality is the building foundation of a code. However, if it is missing some of its functionalities, then the foundation of code is faulty, and development risks always increase in that stage.
Design & Analysis
In a perfect world, all changes to the software's design would have been addressed and evaluated before deployment. But as humans, we make mistakes, and the time passes, restructuring and redesigning is code always gets difficult. Therefore, in the code review checklist, we have to see if the changes that have been made must match the proposed code design. The code logic must be divided into object-oriented classes to interact with each other properly.
Recognize Iterative Code
Repetitive code leads to recurrent errors, increased complexity, and unneeded overhead. Because of code repetition, certain errors occur in the program. It makes our code lengthy and harder to understand. Repeated code means repeated errors to resolve, and repeated number of tests required. So what to look for in code review in that condition. Starting to resolve the root after this, we have to fix every piece of code where that function is repeatedly used and look to resolve the other projects where that repeated code is used as a Submodule.
Analyze Algorithms' Runtime
The time required to execute an algorithm is proportional to the number of operations performed and can be stated using Big O notation. The greater the number of actions, the longer the application will take to run and should be considered in the code review checklist. So, how to do code review in that case? First of all, check if there are any unnecessary operations; if so, remove them. Secondly, remove any unneeded loops if the work is done by applying simple operations. Thirdly, we have to resolve whether those algorithms are working fine or not; if so, then use reliable algorithms.
Error Handling
Is there adequate error handling in the code? If not, then during the code review process, you have to apply them to avoid unnecessary errors. Now the question is how to do code review in such conditions. The answer is exception handling. Exceptions should be used appropriately to address erroneous inputs caused by human interaction, hardware limits, or network difficulties, among other things. Assertions should be enabled to detect problems and validate test cases by testing conditions.
Memory Assigning
Memory allocation can be error-prone if it is performed incorrectly. Here is a comprehensive list of the most dangerous software problems caused by memory allocation. If unneeded items in memory are never removed, memory leaks will arise. Premature freeing occurs when a program frees an object that is still in use by the program. By releasing an already-free item, an object can be double-freed. All of the mentioned problems resulted in a memory crash. So, we have to resolve that during the code review process.
Unclear Comments
Another common code review error includes unclear, confusing comments in the author of the code's comments area. It is not helpful to make monosyllabic comments such as "Please Fix" in response to something you dislike or disagree with. How would the developer interpret that? Perhaps the developer would figure it out, or perhaps they lack the necessary expertise to solve it. The reviewer should make a point of providing accurate, comprehensible comments.
Keep It Brief and Simple
According to the majority of developers, a one-hour code review procedure is typically effective. An hour, we believe, is a suitable upper limit. Having said that, if your review is expected to take more than an hour, it's advisable to break it up into sessions and take breaks. Bear in mind, however, that a lengthy code review procedure is often ineffective.
Consistency
What if the present code violates the style guide's regulations? The style guide may give recommendations rather than stating standards in some circumstances. So, what to look for in code review guidelines? In these circumstances, the new code must be consistent with the recommendations or with the surrounding code. If no other criteria apply, the author should adhere to the existing code's consistency. Suggest the author register a bug and include a TODO to clean up existing code in either case.
Parallel Programming in a Secure Environment
When parallel programming is used, it is crucial to evaluate for deadlocks and race conditions. These vulnerabilities can be difficult to test by simply executing the code, which is why it's vital to have another developer look at them. For this code review process secure environment is necessary if you are applying parallel programming.
Conclusion
Derailing a code review creates additional work for everyone involved: the developer, the reviewer, and the entire team. Code review issues or errors can have a detrimental effect on the overall work climate and the team. The preceding collection of code review checklists makes you aware of some of the errors you may make as a developer or reviewer. Therefore, avoid them rather than going through the time-consuming process of code review.
