#Yes typo review software
#Yes typo review code

#Yes typo review code

Allowing typos to be committed to the code base increases the chances of this type of frustration. Frustrating is especially acute when BDD Gherkin steps have typos. Imagine trying to call the do_stuff method, only to discover that the original method was named do_stuf after an hour of hair-pulling, fist-banging, and cursing at the screen. It prevents future frustration. People expect things to be spelled and formatted the right way. Compiler error messages are often cryptic and may not intuitively point to typos.

Being tough on small things encourages engineers to straighten-up on all things. Mistakes are bound to happen, but pervasive typos indicate a deeper, systemic problem. Reviews are a measure of accountability between peer engineers to prevent carelessness. It corrects carelessness. Typos mean carelessness. Nevertheless, I strongly believe that yes, code reviews should be rejected for typos. Authors may also take offense, especially if English (or the language of dialogue) is their second language. Requiring corrections takes extra time, which in business costs more money. The code itself will still compile and run, so long as the use of typo’ed identifiers is consistent. There are valid reasons why not to reject code reviews despite typos. For example, a variable named somehting would be a typo. One such controversial rule is the title of this blog post: Should a code review be rejected for typos? I use the word “typos” here to broadly include any sort of typographical shortcoming: misspellings, incorrect grammar, poor formatting, and even improper spacing. Other rules, however, can cause controversy. Some rules, such as “no personal attacks” and “focus only on the changes at hand,” are universally agreeable. Good guides can be found here, here, and here for reference.

To make them effective, a team must establish best practices – not only for the code itself, but also for the review process. Code reviews provide a platform for constructive feedback, accountability, and even learning opportunities. In a code review, peers read each others’ code and vote to approve or reject the changes before committing them to the main code base.

#Yes typo review software

Code reviews are essential to good software development.