Group code reviews

Posted: 2023-01-29 16:03:38 by Alasdair Keyes

Direct Link | RSS feed


Whist working with a customer of mine, I was introduced to a way of code review that I hadn't seen before. I'm not sure if it's particularly unique to them, but in my experience it's fairly rare... group code review.

In all previous companies I've worked at/with, a pull request (PR) is created and has some key devs added for Code Review. For a speedy review a link to the PR was often thrown into the Dev Slack channel with a little prodding or begging to get the task done.

Now, most people in dev teams are busy; or at least if they're not too busy, they find almost anything more interesting than reviewing a PR. It can be tedious and if it's touching code that you're not familiar with, you can often end up spending some time trying to work out both what the code was doing and what the change is supposed to be doing. In the end it was often team leaders who ended up picking up the slack and performing the reviews to get code out the door. This puts an excessive burden on them when it could be shared more equally.

The process

This particular customer had group code reviews once in the morning after stand-up and then an optional code review mid afternoon if required. My first thought was that this would cause undue disruption to work flow but over time I saw immense benefit in this approach and very little drawback.

The developer that wrote the code would create a PR as normal. At the review, they would share their screen on a famous git-hosting provider. Usually they would give a sentence about the ticket and what they were trying to achieve. Due to stand-ups and backlog planning, everyone usually had a fairly good idea on this already. The dev would proceed to go through the changes on their branch, giving a run down of the code as they went. Questions or points could be made by anyone and a discussion could be had amongst the group. If new tests were made, they would also be run through briefly so that other devs could see what was being tested, whether it was suitable/adequate and any edge cases that might fall through the cracks and need to be added. (It also required that the tests passed!)

Any changes that were required and agreed upon by the team were added to the PR and the dev would go back and implement the changes.

If the changes needed were minor, they were often approved by a senior dev and scheduled for release. Larger changes would have to have a new PR created and go back into the code review process. The coder would only have to go through the changes from the last code review, not the whole shebang.

The benefits...

Things you think are bad... but they're not as bad as you think...

So that's my review on group code-review. If you're looking for possible improvements to your process I strongly advise you give it a shot. Do it for a month or so and see how you get on. You can always tweak the process based on your needs and fall back to your previous ways if you don't like it.


If you found this useful, please feel free to donate via bitcoin to 1NT2ErDzLDBPB8CDLk6j1qUdT6FmxkMmNz

© Alasdair Keyes

IT Consultancy Services

I'm now available for IT consultancy and software development services - Cloudee LTD.



Happy user of Digital Ocean (Affiliate link)


Version:master-4091c64dc9


Validate HTML 5