Code Review: A Comprehensive Overview For 2021


Building a start-up is difficult; building programming for it isn’t simpler. However, what makes programming extraordinary? Great code. However, how might you be certain that the code is good?

Working with numerous customers who came to us with programming tests they might want to create, we discovered that, apparently, many IT companies and freelance developers disregard the process of code review. So, let’s start with the essential terminology.

In this article let us look at:

  1. Understanding Code Review
  2. What is Code Review?
  3. Types
  4. Common Code Review Approaches
  5. Tracking Your Progress
  6. Best Practices
  7. Future of Peer Code Review
  8. Areas Covered
  9. Checklist

1. Understanding Code Review

To any individual who considers code-reviews with a shudder and a cringe, reviewing how they utilized to be done years ago, the possibility of bringing such a framework into your quick-moving Agile work environment can seem like an unusual and cruel punishment. 

Although all the other things in the world of software and computing development, code-reviews have advanced significantly, and there are presently numerous transformations to browse. Nowadays, as successful as they generally are, the long conventional code-review process isn’t regularly essential besides in programming circumstances where there is in a real sense a zero percent margin for the mistake, such as in avionics or other controlled enterprises where human wellbeing comes first regardless of anything else.

2. What is Code Review?

Peer Code Review, or Code Review, is the act of systematically and consciously meeting with one’s fellow developers to check each other’s code for mistakes and has been over and over appeared to streamline and accelerate out the process of software development as not many different practices can. There are peer code-review tools and software, yet the actual idea is critical to comprehend.

Yet, what isn’t so clear is the reason why code-review in software engineering regularly depends on automated or manual testing to vet their code to the disregard of that other extraordinary gift of human nature: the capacity to see and address mistakes.

3. Types

  • Instant code-review.
  • Synchronous code-review.
  • Asynchronous code-review.
  • Code-review once in a while.

4. Common Code Review Approaches

The approaches of the common code-review are:

  • The Email Thread:

When a given piece of code is prepared for review, the file is sent around to the suitable colleagues using email for every one of them to review when their work process permits.

  • Pair Programming:

As one of the signs of XP or Extreme Programming, this approach to deal with writing programming puts developers next to each other, working away at a similar code together and along these lines checking each other’s work as they go. It’s a decent route for senior developers to coach junior partners and appears to prepare code-review straightforwardly into the programming cycle.

  • Tool-Assisted:

We saved our undisputed top choice for last, as there is seemingly no less complex and more effective approach to review code than through software-based code review tools, some of which are software-based or flawlessly incorporate inside a variety of standard SCM and IDE development systems.

  • Over-the-Shoulder:

More agreeable for most developers than the Extreme Programming pair, the old over-the-shoulder method is the simplest and most instinctive approach to take part in peer code review.

5. Tracking Your Progress

Whichever technique for peer review one likes, it’s implied that metrics matter in the field of code review, particularly with so numerous developer groups out there as yet holding on to be convinced about its definitive viability as a standard practice.

6. Best Practices

The code review practices are:

  • Realise what to study for in a code review.
  • Test and build before review.
  • Try not to review code for longer than an hour.
  • Check close to 400 lines at the same time.
  • Give feedback makes a difference.
  • Communicate expectations and goals.
  • Remember everyone for the code review process.
  • Cultivate a positive culture.
  • Automate to save time.

7. Future of Peer Code Review

In a universe of speeding up software production plans, where the ceaseless arrangement is turning into the standard, and client feedback is an unending loop, a consistently expanding dependence on the privileged digital devices for greatest proficiency simply makes sense. The impact of the GitHub code review can be felt by the expanding measure of reviews that development groups are really doing.

8. Areas Covered

Great code reviews look at the actual change and how it finds a way into the codebase. They will look through the clearness of the description and title and “why” of the change. They cover the functionality changes, test coverage, correctness of the code and affirm that they follow the best practices and coding guides.

Better code reviews look at the adjustment with regards to the bigger framework and check that changes are not difficult to keep up. They may pose inquiries about the need for the change or what it means for different pieces of the framework.

9. Checklist

  • Separation the review into time slots.
  • Ask teammates for help.
  • Catch metrics.
  • Stay positive.
  • Set up the bug fixing process.


Code review might be particularly profitable for distinguishing security weaknesses. Specialized application programs are available that can assist with this interaction. Automated code review works with systematic testing of source code for potential difficulties like duplicate statements, size violations, memory leakage, race conditions, and buffer overflows.

If you are interested in making a career in the Data Science domain, our 11-month in-person Postgraduate Certificate Diploma in Data Science course can help you immensely in becoming a successful Data Science professional. 


Related Articles

Please wait while your application is being created.
Request Callback