> Google’s guidelines for a good code review include:
> - Continuous improvement over perfection
This seems like the biggest win of all. All too often, PR reviews just focus on superficial or subjective items such as code formatting or variable naming (not that variable naming isn't important, but these discussions rarely yield any fruit).
It's not clear, though, how Google's Critique tool, specifically, facilitates that, or any of the other objectives.
I'm sure Critique is a great tool, but the article's claims about "taking the pain out of reviews" isn't very convincing.
This seems like the biggest win of all. All too often, PR reviews just focus on superficial or subjective items such as code formatting or variable naming (not that variable naming isn't important, but these discussions rarely yield any fruit).
It's not clear, though, how Google's Critique tool, specifically, facilitates that, or any of the other objectives.
I'm sure Critique is a great tool, but the article's claims about "taking the pain out of reviews" isn't very convincing.