Code Review Process and Methodology

My code review process is pretty simple but deliberate. Before I send a change out, I try to make the description clear, explain what I changed, and mention how I tested it, especially if there was a part I was unsure about. When I review someone else's code, I focus first on whether I understand what the change is doing, then I look for obvious correctness issues, edge cases, and anything that would be hard for the next person to read. I also try to separate things that are important from small suggestions so I don't create noise. One thing I learned from repeated review comments was that I used to miss edge cases, so now I check those before asking for review and it has reduced the back-and-forth on my changes.

I usually start by reading the change end to end without commenting, just to make sure I understand the goal and how it fits with the rest of the code. After that, I check for basic correctness, but I also pay attention to whether the code is easy for someone else to pick up later, because I’ve worked on teams where small unreadable changes became big headaches during support. When I submit my own work, I try to include a short summary of the problem, the approach I took, and any screenshots or test results that make it easier to review quickly. I also like to ask for review early if I’m not sure about part of the logic, because I’d rather get a correction before the code grows than have someone find a larger issue later. In reviews, I try to leave comments that are specific and respectful, and if something is just a preference, I usually say so instead of presenting it like a bug. I’ve found that this approach helps me learn faster while also keeping the feedback useful for the rest of the team.