Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Launch HN: PullRequest (YC S17) – On-Demand Code Review

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 68 posts

Re: Launch HN: PullRequest (YC S17) – On-Demand Code Review

#51

Post by tyler_mann »

senko wrote: post #50

I am skeptical that this can work well. Having deep understanding of the code in question is essential for a good code review. Not just the code under review, but the wider scope of the project. This helps spot architectural problems, inconsistencies, unearth hidden assumptions or assumption breakages, and the like. Reviewing the code as a drive-by loses all of those benefits and boils down to focusing on the code at…

Thanks for the comments/viewpoint. This is definitely something that we are looking to address as you mentioned by keeping the same reviewers on the project over time.

Although for teams that have a great reviewer like you mention with context, we think that PullRequest offers an extra set of eyes instead of a full replacement. We hope that we can hopefully save you time and add value by catching all of the mistakes possible up front and leave the architecture up to you.

Re: Launch HN: PullRequest (YC S17) – On-Demand Code Review

#53

Post by hitgeek »

jlamberts wrote: post #26

I would love this as an individual when learning new languages on my own projects. I find it really hard to tell if I'm actually doing things the "right" way without talking to someone more experienced.

yes this is a good thought. I wish they had a free tier for this purpose. 1 review a month or something.

Re: Launch HN: PullRequest (YC S17) – On-Demand Code Review

#54

Post by tedmiston »

I'm a huge fan of static analysis and code quality, and am really excited to see where this goes.

It would be nice to see a demo video before giving full access to my private repos.

> Pricing > Standard starting at $49 per month*

> * Billing is dependent on amount of meaningful change per month. $9 per user per month for static analysis.

This metric is pretty unclear. Does this mean hourly billing based on reviewer time? Are there tiers or an upper bound? Is there a different tier for open source? Is the pricing different for surface vs deep reviews?

As one of those weird people that thinks doing code reviews and managing code quality is really fun, if I wanted to become a reviewer, what's the vetting process like?

Can you elaborate on, besides involving humans, how the underlying service is different than Code Climate, Codacy, etc?

P.S. Found a small bug on your dev signup form which I reported on Twitter. It would be awesome to be able to help review PullRequest using PullRequest ;).

Re: Launch HN: PullRequest (YC S17) – On-Demand Code Review

#55

Post by tedmiston »

senko wrote: post #50

I am skeptical that this can work well. Having deep understanding of the code in question is essential for a good code review. Not just the code under review, but the wider scope of the project. This helps spot architectural problems, inconsistencies, unearth hidden assumptions or assumption breakages, and the like. Reviewing the code as a drive-by loses all of those benefits and boils down to focusing on the code at…

There are plenty of ways to significantly improve a codebase through review besides deep sweeping architectural changes. As you know, the goal of a review varies widely depending on how big the project, its maturity, how many people contribute to it, etc.

Things like not know about certain shortcut functions in the standard library, improving design pattern usage, docstrings, and otherwise improving modularity, decomposition, cyclomatic complexity, consistency, etc. Code Climate goes far but doesn't do all of these things as good as an experienced engineer.

Re: Launch HN: PullRequest (YC S17) – On-Demand Code Review

#56

Post by tedmiston »

danpalmer wrote: post #23
jbrooksuk wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me, code style should not be part of the review process. This should be automated away https://blog.alt-three.com/code-reviews-are-not-about-coding...

I completely agree, we actually use linters to automate a lot of this, but there is a class of things that linters have a hard time with, like naming, or re-use of existing design patterns or utilities.

Especially true in dynamic languages like Python.

Re: Launch HN: PullRequest (YC S17) – On-Demand Code Review

#57

Post by tedmiston »

redm wrote: post #40

I like this idea, it seems useful for all the ways described. My skepticism comes from the reviewers themselves. I think they will have a hard time attracting and keeping top talent who can provide high-quality reviews as such talent will want to be creating code, not only reviewing it. I'm not sure how they would resolve this.

The impression I had is that reviewers are part-time contractors vs full-time employees. Probably developers creating code all day long.

Re: Launch HN: PullRequest (YC S17) – On-Demand Code Review

#58

Post by lyal »

tedmiston wrote: post #54

I'm a huge fan of static analysis and code quality, and am really excited to see where this goes. It would be nice to see a demo video before giving full access to my private repos. > Pricing > Standard starting at $49 per month* > * Billing is dependent on amount of meaningful change per month. $9 per user per month for static analysis. This metric is pretty unclear. Does this mean hourly billing based on reviewer t…

Great catch! Thanks, replied on twitter - we're dog fooding our own product, so as a reviewer, you'll definitely see our code in the review queue.

Re: Launch HN: PullRequest (YC S17) – On-Demand Code Review

#59

Post by lyal »

naturalgradient wrote: post #47

My suspicion is this: All the issues someone with no familiarity of the code base or the problem could typically uncover are things that are prone to be automated away by software in the long run (or are already in the process of being automated).

I think that's a natural place where our tooling will evolve to - a lot of things that aren't caught in an automated way, after being trained with real review, will. There's no replacement for the human component of review though, and we believe that by allowing reviewers repeated access to the project, that they will gain the context necessary.

Re: Launch HN: PullRequest (YC S17) – On-Demand Code Review

#60

Post by lyal »

josh_carterPDX wrote: post #48

All reviewers sign NDAs to protect your IP. How does your company back this up? What happens if one of your Developers violates this? Will you pay for the legal fees?

We're still exploring the landscape on this. At the core, we're hiring reviewers in jurisdictions that we have presence for (currently North America), and they are signing a 3 way agreement with the company under review. This offers the same level of protection as a traditional consultant in terms of protections.
Post reply on HN