liveBook · Manning

Code review

As explained in The Art of Code

Code review is the practice of examining proposed source-code changes to identify defects, design problems, convention violations, and readability issues before integration.

Code review prevents complexity before integration by putting proposed changes through peer examination. Reviewers look for bugs, design problems, convention violations, and readability issues, while authors revise the code in response. section 3.2.1

Effective reviews depend on a small set of shared practices:

  • Define what requires review and establish clear criteria. section 3.2.1
  • Keep comments respectful and constructive so feedback improves the change rather than burdening the team. section 3.2.1
  • Agree who has final authority when reviewers disagree. section 3.2.1

A review cycle

An author submits a change through a pull or merge request. Peers examine it, ask questions, suggest fixes, and approve it after revision; the change can then be merged. section 3.2.1

How The Art of Code covers it

How deep it goes
Explains review targets, revision flow, and team ground rules, but does not prescribe specific review criteria.
Examples
Uses pull or merge requests, peer feedback, revision, questions, suggested fixes, and approval as concrete workflow elements.
What it assumes
Assumes shared coding conventions and team authority while teaching respectful comments, review criteria, and constructive feedback.
What you can do after
Apply via pull or merge requests to detect defects, challenge design problems, improve readability, and prevent unnecessary complexity.
How it connects
Connects code review with simplicity, coding conventions, readability, pull requests, merge requests, and team communication.

Also explained in

Compare how 10 books explain code review →

Related concepts

This explainer was generated by Manning's knowledge graph from the text of The Art of Code. The section links point to the parts of the book it draws on.