This seems like a bit of an over exaggeration. A pull request isn’t just a chunk of code thrown at people. it’s an entire process with a Title , description, pipeline checks that all come together to say I want this in another branch.
As the PR author it should be your job to:
* Self Review the PR
* Ensure you adhere/fulfill to all the expectations and requirements a PR should have before it’s pulled out of draft
* That all pipeline test pass
* That for a given request X there is test that validate X, Not X , and edge cases of X and are ran in the pipeline.
* Has a clear description of what you’re changing/adding/removing, why, how, and the rollout plan , roll back plan , & the risk level.
The peer review process should make the reviewer engage in a rubber duck process to review their code , loop the team in for changes that can change their mental model of how a system they own works, and to catch things that we might not catch ourselves.
As the PR author it should be your job to: * Self Review the PR * Ensure you adhere/fulfill to all the expectations and requirements a PR should have before it’s pulled out of draft * That all pipeline test pass * That for a given request X there is test that validate X, Not X , and edge cases of X and are ran in the pipeline. * Has a clear description of what you’re changing/adding/removing, why, how, and the rollout plan , roll back plan , & the risk level.
The peer review process should make the reviewer engage in a rubber duck process to review their code , loop the team in for changes that can change their mental model of how a system they own works, and to catch things that we might not catch ourselves.
Not to the mention the security implications