Your job is to deliver code you have proven to work

Post by Nizoss » Thu, Dec 18, 2025, 6:24 PM UTC

fjfaase wrote: post #295

One more reason to work without branches and PRs. The future for CI/CD is bright ;-).

Post by jennyholzer2 » Thu, Dec 18, 2025, 6:25 PM UTC

lowkeyokay wrote: post #157

endorphine wrote: post #104

> there’s one depressing anecdote that I keep on seeing: the junior engineer, empowered by some class of LLM tool, who deposits giant, untested PRs on their coworkers—or open source maintainers—and expects the “code review” process to handle the rest. It's even worse than that: non -junior devs are doing it as well.

In the company I’m at this is beginning to happen. PM’s want to “prototype” new features and expect the engineers to finish up the work. With the expectation that it ‘just needs some polishing’. What would be your recommendation on how to handle this constructively? Flat out rejecting LLM as a prototyping tool is not an option.

Post by rootusrootus » Thu, Dec 18, 2025, 6:29 PM UTC

unbalancedevh wrote: post #300

rootusrootus wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone else mentioned, the process is async. But I achieve a similar effect by requiring my team to review their own PRs before they expect a senior developer to review them and approve for merging. That solves some of the problem with people thinking it's okay to fire off a huge AI slop PR and make it the reviewer's responsibility to see how much the LLM hallucinated. No, you have to look at yourself first, beca…

> requiring my team to review their own PRs before they expect a senior developer to review them I'm having a hard time imagining the alternative. Do junior developers not take any pride in their work? I want to be sure my code works before I submit it for review. It's embarrassing to me if it fails basic requirements. And as a reviewer, what I want to see more than anything is how the developer assessed that their c…

Post by abathur » Thu, Dec 18, 2025, 6:31 PM UTC

simianwords wrote: post #255

layer8 wrote: post #138

I’d go further and say while testing is necessary, it is not sufficient. You have to understand the code and convince yourself that it is logically correct under all relevant circumstances, by reasoning over the code. Testing only “proves” correctness for the specific state, environment, configuration, and inputs the code was tested with. In practice that only tests a tiny portion of possible circumstances, and omits…

I would like to challenge this claim. I think LLMs are maybe accurate enough that we don't need to check every line and remember everything. High level design is enough.

    @patch.dict(os.environ, {"ENVIRONMENT": "production"})
    def test_settings_environment_from_env(self) -> None:
        """Test environment setting from env var."""
        from importlib import reload

        import app.config

        reload(app.config)

        # Settings should use env var
        assert os.environ.get("ENVIRONMENT") == "production"

Post by alphazard » Thu, Dec 18, 2025, 6:32 PM UTC

Larrikin wrote: post #287

hostyle wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not everything is about money. Have you never wanted to be good at something because you enjoy it? Or do something for the love of the craft? Have you heard of altruism?

But why do that for the company instead of yourself?