• onlinepersona@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      Not with that attitude they won’t 😛

      Refactoring in PRs just makes it more difficult to review. “Do these lines belong to the goal nor not?”. Also, we’re human and miss things. Adding more text to review means the chance of missing something increases.
      Especially if the refactored code isn’t just refactored but modified, things are very easy to miss. Move an entire block of code from one file to another and make changes within = asking for trouble or a “LGTM” without any actual consideration. It makes code reviews more difficult, error-prone, and annoying.

      Code reviews aren’t there to just tick off a box. They are there to ensure what’s on the tin is actually in it and whether it was done well.

      CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

      • nick@campfyre.nickwebster.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 months ago

        In my experience I haven’t had an issue because usually the refactorings are small. If they’re not I just hop on a call with the person who wrote the MR and ask them to walk me through it.

        In theory I’d like to have time to dedicate solely to code health, but that’s not quite the situation in basically any team I’ve been in.

        • onlinepersona@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          I haven’t had any trouble separating refactors PRs from ticket PRs. Make the ticket PR, make a refactor PR on that ticket PR, merge the ticket PR, rebase refactor PR on master, open ticket PR for review, done 🤷

          CC BY-NC-SA 4.0