This is more common than you might otherwise think. I've worked at multiple companies that have multiple systems/sources of truth for various reasons. One example of that is my current company has stored and handled all its transactional data in a legacy point of sale system from the early 90s. They decided to upgrade to a modern ERP system a couple years ago, but it takes a while to fully implement and roll over to a new source system. Especially in a high transaction system that cannot go down otherwise the company will start losing a lot of money. Thus its being incrementally rolled out, resulting in both systems running together and being read and written to simultaneously.
I do it all the time and have been doing it as long as I can remember. I couldn't tell you why, but as others have pointed out it annoys the crap out of people when they're trying to read with me.
1. It seems to mostly be a me problem, on reviews of other coworkers PRs her comment seem reasonable. That could just be not fully understanding scope or task at hand.
2. I believe it's in good faith. Sometimes comments will be helpful for when I forgot a specific convention or missed something small.
3. I have not had a direct conversation as I'm not sure how to go about it or phrase it. We seem to have a good relationship and I don't want to potentially ruin it going about this in the wrong way.
4. We have basic standards: X amount of required reviewers, all PR feedback resolved appropriately, PR contents fully address acceptance criteria for the task at hand. Pretty standard stuff in my experience for code review
>It seems to mostly be a me problem, on reviews of other coworkers PRs her comment seem reasonable. That could just be not fully understanding scope or task at hand.
What do you think explains the difference?
* Are there ways you can explain yourself better that others are doing?
* Could the problem honestly be with your code being hard to understand? Could you simplify?
* Could you deliver in smaller chunks, that are each easier to understand?
* Is it about working on a tech or product area that they aren't so familiar with? Perhaps you can help bridge that gap with a lightning talk or some new documentation?
>I have not had a direct conversation as I'm not sure how to go about it or phrase it. We seem to have a good relationship and I don't want to potentially ruin it going about this in the wrong way.
You've got to place trust in your colleagues that you can have adult conversations about what's working well and what's not. It doesn't have to be a big deal!
It could be as simple as:
"Hey <name>, I feel like a few times lately PR reviews hasn't been smooth. Have you noticed that too? Is there anything you think I could do differently?"
>We have basic standards
One thing that could help here is improving your team standards for a PR author! E.g. at my company, we have a PR template which encourages you to add a screenshot/screencast of your feature working.
We also encourage adding test steps to our PR template, to make it easy for reviewers to try the thing themselves. Good test steps might look like:
* Run the app as normal
* Turn on feature flag XYZ
* Head to localhost:3000/new-page and click all the widgets
* You should see the widgets created in your db with this query:
It sounds like work, but it's probably the steps you did anyway before you put the PR up! so it's more of a mindset thing
No, I don't think so. I think my response went right over yours.
The comment is trying to mirror my criticism - "I read the first part, found an error, and stopped". My response is trying to highlight that, in fact, their response does not mirror mine because I had actual errors that I pointed out that motivated me to stop reading, whereas that comment did not (apparently).
In other words, if I had actually made substantive errors in my first sentence or so, it might make sense to stop reading. I'd have already demonstrated that my thinking wasn't very clear. If that was the case though, then it would be an invalid criticism of my reasoning (read a bit, saw an error, stopped) because that comment author would be following the same paradigm. On the other hand, if I didn't actually make any substantive errors in the first sentence or so my post, then the criticism is still invalid, because, while I actually pointed out substantive errors in the OP, this comment doesn't point out substantive errors in my comment.
It was a joke mostly - but specifically, I find it funny that a portion was read, and instead of just moving on, felt the need to poke at the article without at least finishing it. That is the "error" - who knows, maybe your criticisms were addressed later on? We'll never know :P
(like I said, it was mostly in jest, so don't take it too seriously, please)
One point I think some people are overlooking are the military implications of launching nuclear facilities. These become prime targets in times of conflict that can cause a ton of damage if successfully attacked. Maybe that is part of the reason countries are hesitant to build them?
> military implications of launching nuclear facilities. These become prime targets in times of conflict that can cause a ton of damage if successfully attacked.
As opposed to a nuclear explosion delivered by an ICBM?
I think the issue is that a small country or simply a terrorist organization that doesn't have ICBM capabilities could still conceivable cause a nuclear disaster through a lower tech attack on a nuclear facility.
Distance swimmers don't really hold their breath, but sprinters certainly do. I was a state champion sprinter, and when I would swim the 50 freestyle I only breathed once, usually a few strokes after the turn. For the 100 freestyle it was one breath per lap, and this is crucial because in a sprint anytime you breathe you are slowing yourself down.
