Peer reviews are a critical element of Frog's SLDC. We feel the ability to openly collaborate on a piece of code ensures quality contributions whilst providing an effective tool to develop the teams technical skills.
In this exercise we'd like to mimic a merge request scenario where you play the role of peer reviewer. Take a look at the code included in this folder, respond with comments and insights you feel relevant to the request.
Consider the contributor as a fellow developer with ~1-2 years experience. Their brief is to build a small CLI tool to support the acquisition and processing of data for consumption in 2 scenarios:
- as a user, to validate the data/process
- as a machine, to automate the process on a regular basis
The tool is likely to exist for a 2-3 month period as part of a data pipeline being used for a marketing campaign.
What we're looking to understand about you:
- can you capture the broad stroke objectives of a piece of code?
- how do you engage a developer when critiquing their contributions?
- what you feel is important/relevant in the context of the task brief?
As this is only a mock peer review, capture your feedback in a markdown document in a format that allows us to understand your comments with as much code context as possible, see the example below.
Line
#18$t = 0;The use of
$tas a variable name is vague, use a more descriptive name... for xyz reasons, etc, etc. For example:$total = 0;
There are various implementations of the same build included in the repository. Choose a single implementation to critique (in the language you're most comfortable with), each implementation will broadly share similar characteristics but there maybe nuances within that are language specific.
# php -f ./books.php
# php -f ./books.php frog
# php -f ./books.php frog n
# node books.js
# node books.js frog
# node books.js frog n