There's a spectrum of "like" and "didn't like", you know. Have you ever truly come across a situation with a co-worker where there was no redeedming quality in their code review?
> Have you ever truly come across a situation with a co-worker where there was no redeedming quality in their code review?
This is irrelevant. Calling out specific parts as good is a great idea, if nothing else as clarification of what in particular it was that you didn't like. This is not what people are arguing against.
In the example under discussion, the judgement of the work as a whole was "bad", while the communication on the work as a whole was "I really liked your approach". This is not pointing out redeeming qualities, it's just dishonesty.
no, it's the entire point. Don't focus all on the bad, we're biased towards that and it's something we should always keep in mind.
>In the example under discussion, the judgement of the work as a whole was "bad",
exhibit A. Where in that top post was the objective judgement "bad"? As a reminder:
> If you are calling out your colleagues for doing bad work, or not the way you would do it work, you should try to rephrase into praise w/ direction. “I really liked how you tackled this, have you thought about this approach?” Instead of “Why didn’t you do it this way?”
We're assuming the "caller" in this case is right. When there may not be a metric of "correct approach". This is especially highlighted with "not the way you would do it". Okay, who says your way is the best way?
If you cant self-introspect and understand different approaches, as well as shortcomings in your own, then yes. I would say you are that hostile worker no one wants to work with.
> If you cant self-introspect and understand different approaches, as well as shortcomings in your own, then yes. I would say you are that hostile worker no one wants to work with.
That is entirely unwarranted, and beside the point.
> Where in that top post was the objective judgement "bad"?
No objective judgement is being made or communicated.
> We're assuming the "caller" in this case is right.
We don't need to assume that, or even take technical merit into consideration. This is not a question of who is right or wrong in a technical sense.
What is communicated by the caller's first sentence is whether the caller liked the approach. By their own admission they did not like it ("bad work"), but they communicated that they did like it ("I really liked").
okay, so we're talking in circles and you simply dismiss any attempts at clarifiation. I have a point but you are free to ignore it, even if you think it's irrelevant it is to me.
just keep this thread in mind the next time you say in your mind "I don't know why coworker X isn't getting it". Sometimes you need to check under your shoe.
EDIT: the last response shows I was wasting my time here. I wish we had an ignore feature on HN.
Yes? It's certainly not common but I've been asked to review PRs where the author misunderstood the problem, did completely the wrong thing, and did a bad job of doing the wrong thing too. I think it's always been from someone who normally does decent work but was in a rush for whatever reason and just completely botched things this one time.
