{"pageProps":{"note":{"id":10264,"site_id":57,"user_id":63,"body":"# Code Reviews Comments Convention\n\nA convention to clarify the intention of a comment in a Pull Request (PR) review using prefixes.\n\n![xkcd standars](https://photos.collectednotes.com/photos/63/9be36614-4d0b-4c70-98f7-2ffab8ae783c)\n\n*[Mandatory xkcd](https://xkcd.com/927/)*\n\nAlthough it is possible to express the intent in the way the comment is written, it is easier to do so with a simple prefix. Not only it requires less words but it is also easier to take a quick look at the comments and understand what is the intention/meaning of each one.\n\nMy rule of thumb is, only reviews that include `[req]` and/or `[q]` should _Reject_ the PR. In other cases just make the review a _Comment_ or _Approve_.\n\n## Prefixes\n\n**`[req]` (requested change)**\n\nReviewer *believes* something should be changed.\n\n**`[nth]` (nice to have)**\n\nReviewer suggests something better/more thorough/common pattern etc.\n\n**`[pp]` (personal preference *of the reviewer*)**\n\nThis shows own opinion on style/unification etc. Might influence the author to apply some changes, but does not provide any benefits (it's not for optimization/better interfaces etc.)\n\n**`[q]` (question)**\n\nReviewer would like to get some explanation on topic.\n\n**`[fixed]`**\n\nAuthor fixed/changed based on the comment.\n\n**`[wont-fix]`**\n\nAuthor declines the request. It should be first discussed with reviewer and explained in comment.\n\n## Credits\n\nTo whoever came up with this convention 😅\n\nIf you know let me know, so I can credit & thank them! 🙏\n\n---\n\n**Happy and safe coding** ✌️","path":"code-reviews-comments-convention","headline":"A convention to clarify the intention of a comment in a Pull Request (PR) review using prefixes.\n\nxkcd standars...","title":"Code Reviews Comments Convention","created_at":"2020-07-13T13:42:44.714Z","updated_at":"2020-07-13T21:57:05.951Z","visibility":"public","poster":"https://photos.collectednotes.com/photos/63/9be36614-4d0b-4c70-98f7-2ffab8ae783c","curated":false,"ordering":0,"collections_id":null,"url":"https://collectednotes.com/gillchristian/code-reviews-comments-convention"},"site":{"id":57,"user_id":63,"name":"Christian Gill","headline":"","about":"","host":null,"created_at":"2020-05-20T07:58:35.178Z","updated_at":"2023-09-17T17:34:17.741Z","site_path":"gillchristian","published":true,"tinyletter":"","domain":"blog.gillchristian.xyz","webhook_url":"","curated":true,"payment_platform":null,"is_premium":true,"total_notes":30},"body":"<h1><span id='code-reviews-comments-convention' class='anchor-heading'><a href='#code-reviews-comments-convention'>Code Reviews Comments Convention</a></span></h1>\n\n<p>A convention to clarify the intention of a comment in a Pull Request (PR) review using prefixes.</p>\n\n<p><img src=\"https://photos.collectednotes.com/photos/63/9be36614-4d0b-4c70-98f7-2ffab8ae783c\" alt=\"xkcd standars\"></p>\n\n<p><em><a href=\"https://xkcd.com/927/\" target=\"_blank\" class=\"link\">Mandatory xkcd</a></em></p>\n\n<p>Although it is possible to express the intent in the way the comment is written, it is easier to do so with a simple prefix. Not only it requires less words but it is also easier to take a quick look at the comments and understand what is the intention/meaning of each one.</p>\n\n<p>My rule of thumb is, only reviews that include <code>[req]</code> and/or <code>[q]</code> should <u>Reject</u> the PR. In other cases just make the review a <u>Comment</u> or <u>Approve</u>.</p>\n<h2><span id='prefixes' class='anchor-heading'><a href='#prefixes'>Prefixes</a></span></h2>\n\n<p><strong><code>[req]</code> (requested change)</strong></p>\n\n<p>Reviewer <em>believes</em> something should be changed.</p>\n\n<p><strong><code>[nth]</code> (nice to have)</strong></p>\n\n<p>Reviewer suggests something better/more thorough/common pattern etc.</p>\n\n<p><strong><code>[pp]</code> (personal preference <em>of the reviewer</em>)</strong></p>\n\n<p>This shows own opinion on style/unification etc. Might influence the author to apply some changes, but does not provide any benefits (it&#39;s not for optimization/better interfaces etc.)</p>\n\n<p><strong><code>[q]</code> (question)</strong></p>\n\n<p>Reviewer would like to get some explanation on topic.</p>\n\n<p><strong><code>[fixed]</code></strong></p>\n\n<p>Author fixed/changed based on the comment.</p>\n\n<p><strong><code>[wont-fix]</code></strong></p>\n\n<p>Author declines the request. It should be first discussed with reviewer and explained in comment.</p>\n<h2><span id='credits' class='anchor-heading'><a href='#credits'>Credits</a></span></h2>\n\n<p>To whoever came up with this convention 😅</p>\n\n<p>If you know let me know, so I can credit &amp; thank them! 🙏</p>\n\n<hr>\n\n<p><strong>Happy and safe coding</strong> ✌️</p>\n","links":{}},"__N_SSG":true}