Code review

What is code review?

Code review is the step where another engineer reads a change before it gets merged into the codebase. They check whether it does what it claims, whether it fits the rest of the system, and whether anyone will be able to understand it in six months. Then they approve it or ask for changes.

Most teams do this through a pull request. The author proposes a change, a reviewer comments, the two go back and forth, and the change merges once it holds up. Automated checks run in parallel: linters, type checks, and the test suite catch the mechanical problems so the human can focus on the judgment ones. A reviewer spots that a new database query has no limit and would scan a table that grows every day. The tests passed. The code worked. It would still have taken down production under real traffic, and that is precisely the kind of thing review catches and automation misses.

Done well, it spreads knowledge as much as it catches bugs. Two people now understand the change instead of one. Done badly, it becomes a rubber stamp or a place for nitpicking. The difference is whether the team treats it as shared ownership of quality.

Code review at Dallonses

Nothing reaches production at Dallonses without another engineer reading it. That is not a formality we mention to sound rigorous. It is how the work stays good when the team is moving fast and the people change. Review is where standards get taught, not in a document nobody opens.

We keep reviews focused on what matters. Correctness, clarity, and whether the change makes the system easier or harder to live with. The mechanical checks run automatically in our CI/CD pipelines, so reviewers spend their attention on the decisions a machine cannot make. When we work alongside a client's engineers, our reviews become a way to share how we think, and theirs sharpen ours. That exchange is part of why teams come out of a project stronger than they went in.

Want a second set of senior eyes on your code? Let's talk.

Talk to us about quality