Who should perform code verification?

Question

I heard two opposing opinions about this:

• This should be done by people who know the general architecture, but do not know the intricacies of this particular component (i.e. people from one project, but with a different component). Argument here they have no preconceived notions about how everything works, and may be able to get a fresh look at the code.
• This should be done by people who know this and from this component. This is because they know the history of the code, for example, why a particular piece of code is written in a certain way and can be better processed in anticipation of a problem. But since they know everything about the component, they can accept certain things.

I think it would be ideal to have both types of people. But if I assume that for some reason I can only have one kind of review, which can be more productive? What is your experience?

Answer 1

The best code reviews in our corporate environment seem to have the following in common:

• Participation is limited to the developer, senior or team leader, project manager and technical guidance for a larger system (we do not use / do not use the term "architect here") and a business analyst representing stakeholders.
• It happens before it starts the UAT loop.
• -- , , findbugs java .
• , , .
• , biz , , , .
• , .

Answer 2

, . , , :

• . - , , , . , . , .
• . .
• . , .
• . - , -, , , .
• II. . , , , .

, . , , - .

, .

, , , , .

Answer 3

, :

• - , , .
• "" , .

( ). , -, , , -, , . , , , , .

, , , . . , - , , . , " ", , , , "". , , .

- - . ( , , ). ... , , - , ~ 5. ~ 2.

, . , . , .

Answer 4

/ , . , .

Answer 5

( ) , , .

, , .

. .

Answer 6

2.

, 100% \standards\conventions\best practices. 1 , \, , , .

Answer 7

, , .

. , , . , , , .

, , , , . , , - , .

Answer 8

, , , , - . , , . , . , , .

Answer 9

-, , , :

• ( " ?" )
• This is a form of acceptance testing ("Yes, if you just change it and I, I agree that I would understand everything else enough to support it.").