gary_chambers

I've been having a debate about whether code should be checked out and run locally (or on a staging environment) as part of code review. Personally, I find it easier to review a change after I've run it locally, but perhaps that's because I'm not very good at reading code.

I'm interested to hear what other people think. Do you run code as part of code review?

I lead a small team building web apps, but we currently have very little structure around code review. I want to get the right balance of process and tooling, but it would be interesting to learn what a healthy code review process looks like in other teams/orgs.

So, what works well for your team? (And what doesn't?)

Do you run the code that you are reviewing? Is it deployed somewhere automatically (if relevant)?

For change requests or bug reports, do you share repro steps? What does this look like? Screenshots, videos, something else?

Is there any sort of acceptance testing before code is merged?

I'm wondering how much process is helpful and ensures quality before it becomes onerous.